User:Taijay Blagrove/Messaging apps/Ben Gallagher Jones 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

 * Taiga Blagrove: Wiki page on Messaging Apps
 * Messaging apps

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No new information has been added to the lead section.
 * 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:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it talks about some of the history of the topic and how it has evolved and why its useful to todays society.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * If October of 2016 counts as up to date, then yes. Although one of the articles used does not have a url link that I can click on.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There are only two paragraphs of new info, and a sentence describing how snapchat works. While its good content, I think more should be added.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Kinda. It does mention specific groups of people such as smartphone users, and group members but the topic is for smartphone users and its describing how different people can use the different techniques. So i think its ok.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Nope, the information can apply to everyone. It talks about what can de done with the platform.
 * 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?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, but one of the sources does not have a url link.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * If 2016 is current, then yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All except one.
 * All except one.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * There are some repetitive words like group which turn the information into a tongue twister. Other than that it is clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Nope, its clean
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, each paragraph/section reflects a different POV.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * New photos were not added
 * 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.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * Many of the notes are taken from one source, but so far there are 2 different sources used in all the new contributions.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The list contains the same source copied and pasted like 8 times in a row.
 * 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?
 * Nope its all added information to already established sections.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Nope

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, it adds a further dimension of how to use the topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Descriptions are well written and can be easily be understood.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More content could be added. Less use of the word "group".