User:Sfwarriors99/Hyper-surveillance/Imakespaghetti29 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? Sfwarriors99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: []

Lead
Guiding questions:

Lead evaluation: The lead is concise and includes an introductory sentence and concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It includes a brief description of the article's major sections. It currently consists of information that is not present in the article, but that's probably because the rest of the article is currently an outline. The lead is very concise and well written.
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:

Content evaluation: The content added yet is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. The author needs to develop the outline to have more content; and I don't anticipate any equity gaps in the article.
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

Tone and balance evaluation: Not much content has been added yet, but the claims and outline do not appear heavily biased toward a particular position and seem fairly neutral. No viewpoints have been overrepresented or underrepresented yet, and do not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.
 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

Sources and references evaluation: No sources have been added yet.
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * 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?

Organization
Guiding questions:

Organization evaluation: Not much content has been added yet, but the article draft was fairly easy to read. There were no grammatical or spelling errors. The outline also shows that the content is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic, and thus is fairly well-organized.
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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

Images and media evaluation: No images or media has been added yet.
 * 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?

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

New Article Evaluation: No secondary sources have been added yet to verify Notability or if the list of sources is exhaustive. However, the article does have potential links to other articles so it is more discoverable.
 * 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:

Overall evaluation: The Article Lead is very well written. The article has a strong outline right now, and the plan for content addition shows a lot of potential. All the best!
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?