User:Timothy Reilly/Ethics of technology/Mackenzie maybury 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? Timothy Reilly
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Ethics of technology

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I do not see that the Lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The Lead does not have much information therefore it does not have 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? The Lead in my opinion is not strong because it only consists of three sentence that do not really described the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is neither concise or overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is somewhat relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content in this article is up-to-date as I did see some references to the current year 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? In my opinion, there is content that is missing and content that does not belong. Most importantly, the Lead is missing information about the information that is discussed throughout the article. The author of this article added a section about ethical challenges which do not really pertain to technology in my opinion.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article does deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps. It addresses topics related to historically underrepresent populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The Lead underrepresented the important information in the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content does not seem to try and persuade a reader to favor either side.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most of the information seemed to be backed up by reliable secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources were thorough.
 * Are the sources current? Some of the sources were current where some others were not.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources seem to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors. There are historically marginalized individuals where possible in the article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is not the well-written because I find it hard to read and follow.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I noticed some grammatical errors while analyzing this article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I do not think this article is well-organized because I have found it hard to follow.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article does not include images that enhance the understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? The content added improved the overall quality of the article and made it more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content added is that it makes the article more complete.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content can be improved by having a better Lead, more information that pertains to the topic of the article, and to organize the content better so it is not hard to follow.