User:Stonecoil/User:Stonecoil/sandbox/Tui37550 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? Stonecoil
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Stonecoil/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * N/A (not edited)
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * N/A (not edited)
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * N/A (not edited)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * N/A (not edited)
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * N/A (not edited)

Lead evaluation
Lead was not edited in the sandbox, unable to find clear link to article being updated in sandbox; had to find that through WikiEdu page. Upon inspection the lead does not need to be updated to reflect information being added as it merely supplements the topic rather than changing it completely.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

Content evaluation
Content is relevant to the article and adds needed clarification and updates. The addition of subsections about the effects on identity and gender filled in gaps sorely missed in the unedited article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone is neutral but often feels essay-like, particularly in the "identity" subsection. Perhaps formatting it as Nakamura's research and claims in one paragraph and Turkle's in another would fix this, as the back-and-forth structure of Nakamura-Turkle-Nakamura feels too much like argumentative writing.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
This one is relatively easy to assess as most of the new additions source-wise come from assigned class readings, and it'd be a bit concerning if readings assigned for the class did not meet these standards in the first place. The addition of Dr. Shaw's own work was a nice touch.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
I touched on the "On Identity" section feeling more like an essay than a Wikipedia article; and just a nitpicky thing for flow -

"As virtual communities grow, so do the diversity of their users" "do" should be changed to "does"

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The article is indeed more complete, and the grammar changes help the flow and professional feel of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Adding a focus on gender and identity offers a fresh new perspective usually not acknowledged by academia, but is important and present all the same. The sources cited are of high, professional quality.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Shift the tone in the "On Identity" section to Wikipedia-esque rather than essay-like.

Overall evaluation
9/10 on an arbitrary numbered scale, the only real issue was the structure issue I've mentioned prior.