User:Tinayyt/sandbox

Draft Reliability verification
Reliability Verification or Reliability Testing is a method to evaluate the reliability of the product in all environments such as expected use, transportation, or storage during the specified lifespan. It is to expose the product to natural or artificial environmental conditions to undergo its action to evaluate the performance of the product under the environmental conditions of actual use, transportation, and storage, and to analyze and study the degree of influence of environmental factors and their mechanism of action. Through the use of various environmental test equipment to simulate the high temperature, low temperature, and high humidity, and temperature changes in the climate environment, to accelerate the reaction of the product in the use environment, to verify whether it reaches the expected quality in R&D, design, and manufacturing.

Description
Reliability is the probability of a product performing its intended function over its specified period of usage and under specified operating conditions, in a manner that meets or exceeds customer expectations. Reliability verification is also called reliability testing, which refers to the use of modeling, statistics, and other methods to evaluate the reliability of the product based on the product's life span and expected performance. Most product on the market requires reliability testing, such as automative, integrated circuit, heavy machinery used to mine nature resources, Aircraft auto software.

Reliability criteria
There are many criteria to test depends on the product or process that are testing on, and mainly, there are five components that are most common


 * 1) Product life span
 * 2) Intended function
 * 3) Operating Condition
 * 4) Probability of Performance
 * 5) User exceptions

The product life span can be split into four different for analysis. Useful life is the estimated economic life of the product, which is defined as the time can be used before the cost of repair do not justify the continue use to the product. Warranty life is the product should perform the function within the specified time period. Design life is where during the design of the product, designer take into consideration on the life time of competitive product and customer desire and ensure that the product do not result in customer dissatisfaction.

Testing Method
A systematic approach to reliability testing is to, first, determine reliability goal, then do tests that are linked to performance and determine the reliability of the product. A reliability verification test in modern industries should clearly determine how they relate to the product's overall reliability performance and how individual tests impact the warranty cost and customer satisfaction.

Hardware
Hardware Reliability Verification includes temperature and humidity test, mechanical vibration test, shock test, collision test, drop test, dustproof and waterproof test, and other environmental reliability tests.

Growth in safety-critical applications for automotive electronics significantly increases the IC design reliability challenge.

Panacotta 101 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) Tinayyt
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tinayyt/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
Lead has been updated to reflect new content added. It introduces the topic in the first sentence. It includes a brief description of following sections. It is a concise lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Content evaluation
Content added is relevant to the topic. It does not deal with equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
Content added is neutral and not biased towards a particular position. It does not try to persuade readers.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
Sources have not be included yet.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
Content added is well-written and well-organized. I found a minor mistake: "The product life span can be split into four different (types) for analysis."

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
No image is added.

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?

New Article Evaluation
Reference is not included in this article. It has a similar structure as other articles. It could also include more links to other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
Content added improves the quality of the article. It has a clear structure. It could be improved by adding more references and links.

Mary Jane 404 Peer Review

 * 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?
 * The lead is overly detailed and hard to read. It does include the topics of the article.

Content evaluation


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content 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?
 * All content is relevant. It doesn't deal with equity gaps. I can't see the sources so it's hard to tell if it's up to date.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article's tone is neural, not particular bias toward a specific entity, and there is no persuasive language.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article 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

"There are many criteria to test depends on the product or process that are testing on, and mainly, there are five components that are most common" needs to be re-written.
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article requires concentration to read. There are a couple spelling/grammar errors. Automotive is spelled wrong and the sentence


 * Well organized but should go deeper into each criteria.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article does not have any media/images.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The talk page include suggesting and the reason for editing, this article is rated as C-Class.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article has a solid base but needs to be built upon more. Adding more content to the criteria and re-wording some sentences would be good.

Article feedback (Leadership)
Hi Tinayyt! Overall great job on your article, I learned a lot about reliability verification. The lead section was really clear and it was easy to gain a better understanding of the topic. Here are some feedback and suggestions as you polish up your article:


 * Keep capitalizations and other formatting consistent. It seems like Reliability verification is capitalized in some parts and it's not capitalized in other parts. Make sure that it remains consistent throughout your article
 * Make sure to add citations and hyperlinks. For citations, please make sure that all 20 of the articles you annotated is cited in this article. Adding hyperlinks allows your article to connect with similar topics and also gives people easy access to other articles if they want to know more about it.

Overall great job and looking forward to reading your final article draft!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Tinayyt
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Link

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Lead evaluation: The Lead has been updated to reflect new content added by my peer. It includes an introductory sentence that clearly and concisely describes the article's topic. The Lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections and does not include information that is not present in the article. The Lead is concise and not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Content evaluation: The content added is up-to-date and relevant to the topic. From my understanding of the topic, there is no content that doesn't belong. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps nor does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation: The content added is neutral and does not have any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. No viewpoints are under or overrepresented and the content added does not 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?
 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation: No sources have been added yet.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Organization evaluation: The content added is well-written and is concise, clear and easy to read. I noticed some very trivial grammatical and sentence structures, but they are easily fixable. The content is well-organized and is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

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: No images have been added yet.

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?

New Article Evaluation: The article is not a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Overall evaluation: The content added has definitely improved the overall quality of the article and made the article more complete. The strengths of the content added are that it is neutral and well-organized. Adding some more detail to the major sections and making some sentence structure fixes could improve the content. All the best!

Peer review(Bunnyshampoo)
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? Tinnayyt
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation: The lead is concise and detailed. Does the method need to be capitalized?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?n/a
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? content for the software section is missing and the others aren't fleshed out
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?no

Content evaluation: There are no citations and the content are not complete.

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: The tone is neutral and encyclopedic

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?no
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?n/a
 * Are the sources current?n/a
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?n/a
 * Check a few links. Do they work?n/a

Sources and references evaluation
There are no sources or links.

Organization
Guiding questions:

Organization evaluation: organization was good, however the reliability criteria may have some grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? no
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? yes
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?yes

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

Images and media evaluation: No images
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?n/a
 * 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.

New Article Evaluation: No discoverable links
 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?no
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? no
 * 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? no
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? no

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:

Overall evaluation: This seems to be in progress still and needs more content/image/sources.
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? no
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The Lead
 * How can the content added be improved? Add more content and sources

Peer review(Niangao)
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?  Tinnayyt
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?n/a
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?content for the software section is missing
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?no

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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?no
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?n/a
 * Are the sources current?n/a
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?n/a
 * Check a few links. Do they work?n/a

Sources and references evaluation
To further improve this article, I suggest to add more reliable sources and also links to other wiki page.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?n/a
 * 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?no
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?n/a
 * 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?n/a
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?no

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?n/a
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)

Tinayyt


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:Tinayyt/sandbox

NOTE from Reliability Verification Link: This page has been deleted. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * 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:


 * 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:


 * 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:


 * 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:


 * 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


 * 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.


 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

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? Tinnayyt
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: There is no draft or article to link

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/A
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?N/A

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?N/A
 * Is the content added up-to-date?N/A
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?N/A
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?N/A

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?N/A
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?N/A
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?N/A
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?N/A

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?N/A
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?N/A
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?N/A
 * Check a few links. Do they work?N/A

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?N/A
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?N/A
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?N/A

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?N/A
 * 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?N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?N/A
 * 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?N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?N/A
 * What are the strengths of the content added?N/A
 * How can the content added be improved?N/A

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)

Tinayyt


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:Tinayyt/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Yes, it is mentioned that more examples are needed in the testing part of reliability verification.


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

Yes, however, I was a bit confused with the term 'product'. I think more information can be discussed in terms of what a 'product' is or entails.


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

There are bullet points that highlight the article's main sections.


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

No, but it's aim is to make the wikipedia article more accessible and easier to understand.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Concise as it goes over the main sections and briefly discusses them.

Lead evaluation
I think the lead is concise and it includes the ways in how you plan to expand and develop the article, including talking about software and hardware testing, more real life examples about them and making the article easier to comprehend in general.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Content evaluation
I think you haven't uploaded a draft.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
I think you haven't uploaded a draft.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
I think you haven't uploaded a draft.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
I think you haven't uploaded a draft.

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
I think you haven't uploaded a draft.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I think you haven't uploaded a draft.

Outline of article:

Lead -

Reliability Verification or Reliability Testing is a method to evaluate the reliability of the product in all environments such as expected use, transportation or storage during the specified lifespan. It is to expose the product to natural or artificial environmental conditions to undergo its action to evaluate the performance of the product under the environmental conditions of actual use, transportation and storage, and to analyze and study the degree of influence of environmental factors and their mechanism of action. Through the use of various environmental test equipment to simulate the high temperature, low temperature and high humidity, and temperature changes in the climate environment, to accelerate the reaction of the product in the use environment, to verify whether it reaches the expected quality in R&D, design, and manufacturing.

The goal is to evaluate the product as a whole to determine the reliability of the product life.

Category - Software; Hardware

Software Verification Test

Hardware Verification Test

This article may need more example so reader can understand it better, most of the testing part is technical, therefore I need to write it in a clear and easy to understand manner.

My topic is Reliability Verification, currently, this topic is underdeveloped in Wikipedia page. This topic is fairly technical, and I think I might be able to make it simpler to understand.

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Cyberattack [Cyberattack]

CONTENT:

The content is relevant to the topic and the most recent edit is 28 September 2020, which is up-to-date. The content did not present a viewpoint from group that are underrepresented.

TONE AND BALANCE:

The tone of the article are unbiased, it explains cyberattack and different terms such as Virus, Worms, Trojan horses, in a fair, unbiased manner. However, in "United States" Section, Wikipedia indicates that "tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone ". After reading it, I did find it to be more personal, and a bit more descriptive than it should be.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES.

There are many reliable sources in the article, most of them are in the recent decades which is considered current. The sources are diverse, with multiple publisher and authors. However, in "China" section, wikipedia indicates that it "needs additional citations for verification"

ORGNIZATION:

The article is easy to read and the article is broke down into pieces that are intuitive for readers.

IMAGES AND MEDIA:

There is one image in the article with a picture that shows different type of cyber attack, which is good since it will aid reader's understanding.

CHECKING THE TALK PAGE:

The talk page include suggesting and the reason for editing, this article is rated asRated "C-class, High-importance".

OVERALL IMPRESSION.

This article should follow wikipedia guidelines and add more relevant sources for some of its section and also should change other section and make the tone more fair and unbiased. This article can also add more media and picture into different section of the page to make it more developed.

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Information privacy [ Information privacy]
 * This article is required.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The introductory sentence is concise, with a brief description, and does not have information not presented in the article.


 * 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

The content is relevant to the topic and the most recent edit is 17 August 2020, which is up-to-date. The content did not include equity gaps.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content 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

The article's tone is neural, not particular bias toward a specific entity, and there is no persuasive language.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

There are many reliable sources in the article, however, most of them are not in the recent decades which can be considered not current. The sources are diverse, with multiple publisher and authors.


 * Are all facts in the article 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

The article is fairly easy to read, and no apparent errors.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article does not have any media/images.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The talk page include suggesting and the reason for editing, this article is rated as C-Class.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

This article can add some visual aid and add more current sources to make is stronger. This article have the potential to develop.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: