User:Wodonnell96/Filter bubble/Izzyseverns 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? (provide username)
 * Wodonnell96
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Filter bubble

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * NA
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The article does, but was not edited by author
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Article does, but was not edited by author
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Article does, but was not edited by author
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Article does, but was not edited by author

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes content is great and concise
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Correct it is - 2008 is the latest
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, I feel all content is relevant. This was about quality not quantity.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes very neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Some, but is backed up by facts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * NA
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Yes in some ways, but not that I feel is overwhelming.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Most of it is backed up with a source. Each large section has at least one source added to it.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes. I could not click on them in the page I was viewing.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I can not click on them in this view.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes very easy to read and no errors.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Only needed to add small fixes, nothing too extreme.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is hard to view in the view I was sent by the professor. I can not view what it will look like in the page.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * NA
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * NA

For New Articles Only (NA for this article)
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?
 * Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The statements read with knowledge and there is sources to back up the statements.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * This course was difficult to understand, it was not very clear what we were supposed to edit where. I feel that based off of the information we were given these contributions are great.