User:VQuiche/Online piracy/Ijustinns 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? VQuiche
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:VQuiche/Online piracy

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, the lead has not been updated or changed since the original.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No, it is the exact same as the old one, and is only one sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it needs a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, it gives an overall description.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is too concise, and needs more to be added.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content that is added that is relevant to the topic. The history of the subject was added with a lot more detail and a longer timeline of the history created a wider range of information. More benefit section was added as well, along with tools.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all the content is within 20 years of the publication of this article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, it all seems to fit and are relevant to the subject.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * I think most of the article is neutral, there are just some wordings that could shade the article in a certain direction, whether negative or positive.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, no claims are heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, I do not think that there are over or under-represented viewpoints within this article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it does not favor any side, it provides both sides for the most part, which is very balanced.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all the sources are secondary and are reliable from journals, books, and articles.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, checking through the sources, they do reflect literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I checked the links, and they do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, I see a chronological order in the sections that give background information. But I do think the ethics section could be organized better, and maybe more information can be added to it.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No errors found!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, but maybe organizing into more sub-points would help.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are no images that have been added to the article. It would be good to add images possibly, for the history of the subject maybe!
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images to be captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No images to go off of.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No images to go off of.

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?
 * I think that you added a lot more background information to the article, which helps a lot! I would make it more organized by having subheadings to separate certain parts so the reader knows where to go to for specific information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I think the addition of more background and history made the article a lot better.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Try playing around with using images or media to help, and organizing subheadings in the main points as well!