User:Sauceboss12/Information assurance/Quackdon Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)

Sauceboss12


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:Sauceboss12/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Yes, what information assurance is built on has been added.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, the first sentence gives a brief overview of what information assurance is.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes, major sections and sub sections within major sections have been highlighted.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

Yes, the lead mentioned how protections apply to data in transit, both physical and electronic forms as well as data at rest but have yet to delve into it in the article.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Concise and clear!

Lead evaluation
The lead successfully informs the reader what information assurance is and gives a clear overview of what to expect in the content of the article. However, more information can be included in terms of the data in transit, physical and electronic forms part.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes because it explains how information assurance is built on.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes because this is the backbone of information assurance.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

All content presented are relevant. However, I think an example can be included in terms of how information assurance may be applied to the intersection of corporate and privacy. I believe this would enhance and consolidate the reader's understanding of information assurance. Also, I think more information about pillars can be included in terms of how they support information assurance.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No, this article is a relatively technical term and a recent topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes and I think short sentences add to the neutrality of the article.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, the information presented seems to be factual and concise!


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I think not necessarily that a viewpoint has been underrepresented but I think more information can be added in terms of how the pillars support or aid information assurance.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, it is rather informative.

Tone and balance evaluation
I think the short sentences written in the article enhances the neutrality of it, by making it more factual. There aren't any biased stances in the article, which makes the article seem factual, informative and gets straight to the point. However, I think more information can be added in terms of how the pillars support or aid information assurance.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, there are constant referrals to sources and the content contains several footnotes.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

The sources are able to reflect the available literature but perhaps more sources can be used to provide greater details of the content.


 * Are the sources current?

Some sources are current. The sources used range form 2005 to 2013.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, the article includes stub pages and is backed up by a source that works.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, I think the headings and sub-headings work well.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, they are organised clearly, according to the order of what's being introduced in the lead.

Organization evaluation
I think the article's structure is coherent and easy to understand. Headings and subheadings are particularly useful in achieving this!

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
Doesn't have images.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes, because readers will have a more foundational understanding of what Information assurance is since it is broken down into more details.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

Readers understand the concept behind information assurance and the different areas this topic intersect with.


 * How can the content added be improved?

I think examples can be included in terms of how information assurance intersect with other topics and a walk through of how information assurance is applied and carried out with the aid of an example

Overall evaluation
I think this is a good start in addressing information assurance. There's a clear structure that allows the reader to anticipate what to learn in the remaining of the article. The information presented is objective and concise, which provides a fundamental understanding of what information assurance is and its pillars. However, I think examples can be included in terms of how information assurance intersect with other topics and a walk through of how information assurance is applied and carried out with the aid of an example to further strengthen the article.