User:Yzo5031/Technology and society/Psu431editor 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? Yzo5031
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Technology and society

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead was not changed recently except for some grammar corrections. Content has not been altered in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead defines the topic to be talked about in the article and presents relevant information.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead talks about the sections and gives a brief summary about them.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? In the last paragraph of the lead some activist movements are mentioned, but they are not included in the article content so they should be included.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is finely detailed and talks about the sections without going overboard. Some information at the end should be expanded on later in the article.

Lead evaluation
The lead is informative and relevant without any criticisms that I have seen in the talk section. Overall, it just needs a few tweaks so that it does not talk about things that do not appear later on.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content that I read as part of the article was relevant to the topic of technology and society, and explains how the sections relate to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The article was created over a decade ago, so it is in need of many updates to make it more current. It does not examine the past few years which have been very influential in terms of technology.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is missing content about modern technological advancements, and how it affects society as far as 2020.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Activist groups are represented in the article that are against the pervasiveness of technology.

Content evaluation
The content is lacking in new material and technological advancements that happened in the past few years. A lot more could be said on the sections that are already included like the bullet points in several sections of the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The tone is neutral in the article with no apparent biases.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The claims seem to favor the technological influence on society but also talks about differing opinions in a balanced tone.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are many viewpoints shown in the article in the "Values" section, the economic aspect, and the activist viewpoints, etc.. so nothing is under- or over-represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content keeps things in a neutral tone, but it offers more of the arguments in favor of technology.

Tone and balance evaluation
The phrasing and tone of sentences throughout most of the article keeps a sense of balance when there is no argument for or against a certain viewpoint. One thing that can cause bias is when presenting more of the positive effects of technology without expanding on the downfall of that technological aspect.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The claims throughout the majority of the article are not backed up with sources of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are mostly old, so they do not reflect accurately on current times.  It is difficult to assess the source relevance when they are mostly old as technology advances rapidly.
 * Are the sources current? No, as mentioned in the previous question most of the sources are old with the latest being from 2017. Many sources are from 1991-2000.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources are diverse and come from different authors and websites. One of the sources is for Karl Marx, but it links to a different wikipedia article so it is not very credible.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links I checked worked for me.

Sources and references evaluation
The article is severely lacking sources as can be seen on the "Talk" page of the article. It is a start-class article so it still needs to be heavily updated with information and sources to become more credible and reliable.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There are some spelling and grammar errors that can be seen in the talk page, but there is a logical flow to the sections.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, there are a few errors that were corrected but some still need to be thoroughly read through and fixed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The sections are broken up nicely according to the information in the lead. Still, some sections are missing that need to be added.

Organization evaluation
The sections are important and pertain to the topic at hand, but they still need to be checked for grammar and spelling errors. The sections can be explained better or split up into smaller sections to make it more organized.

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

Images and media evaluation
No image/media added.

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
The article is relatively old, but it is still labeled as a start-class in need of more content and sources.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I did not see any added content, but I gave some suggestions in the peer review to help with future content.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? No content added but my suggestion is that the new content should be backed up by credible sources, and should explain in more detail something that is already in the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? Suggestions above. Make the new content more relevant to modern times, and talk about glaring issues between technology and society.

Overall evaluation
I have written my suggestions that I think can improve the article to pertain to modern society's relationship with technology.