User:Villa0439/Nextdoor/Deanapol 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? Villa0439
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Nextdoor

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I am not sure what my peer added, but the lead is not the most reflective of the content found within the article. It is very simple and vague, I think some sentences could be combined and also the grammar could be improved.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * It is very short, it should be extended into a longer sentence to provide an elaborate and concise understanding of the article. I think it lacks some specifics on whether it is a website, or application, or a service and if you pay for the service.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No the lead does not provide a brief description on the major sections of the article, this is what I think can be improved significantly in order to improve the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, everything the lead has is cited.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It needs a little more detail, but it is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * I do not know what has been added by my peer; I checked the edit history of the article and the edit history does not include the peers username.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes. Most of the content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think there is nothing missing and everything seems to be relevant.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No there is no bias to a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think the history section is a little underrepresented and I think the controversy section is over represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No the content does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes the content are mostly reliable secondary source information. However there is only 2-3 scholarly articles. Most of the sources are news agencies like Forbes, NPR, and CBNC. I think there should be more scholarly articles if possible.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I think that the sources are thorough because the topic is about a technological application and a fairly new one so there might not be enough out there for additional information.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * There is one link that works, but I am not able to view the information that the peer extrapolated the information from without creating an account through the application Nextdoor. It is the link #7, I do not think researchers should have to make an account to access information.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is mostly concise, but there are areas in the article that you have to read twice to understand because of the wording. I think that the flow of the article needs to be improved.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are grammatical errors, the sentences are too short especially in the lead and there are sentences that require two reads to understand.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I think the content is well-organized and it is broken down very well. Maybe an added section can be reviews or thought of other customers since it is a user based service.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media--NO they did not add 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?

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 there could be changes done to the wording of sentences to have it flow better and easier to read.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I do not see my peers addition to the article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Grammar could be improved and the section for "History" can be improved to be based off dates to have it flow better.

Overall evaluation
The article has some room for improvement. The biggest focus should be on grammar.