User:Yzo5031/Social media intelligence/Apa5230 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? Apa5230
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? New content included
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Introduction sentence included
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Sections descriptions included
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Outside information included
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concisely made

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Relevant information
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Mostly up to date so maybe include more of that
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? A lot of the content fits
 * 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? Neutral tone
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Overall bias is not presented
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Presented at a neutral amount
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Typically just informs the reader

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Reliable information added
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Sources content is thorough
 * Are the sources current? Current sources used
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Sources are very diverse
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All links work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Well-written article so far
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not many errors grammatically
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Very well organized and was one of the strengths overall

Images and Media- Not done yet
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? More sources could be implemented but it is well exhausted
 * 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? Followed patterns included
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, there are external links

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Article feels more complete now
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Well articulated and organization of content is strong
 * How can the content added be improved? SO far, the added content is concise

Overall evaluation
Overall, the page organization is very well put together so keep working more on that. The external sources are very good to work with so keep finding other outside sources for more information to be added.