User talk:Atallent/Being Digital

Peer review

General info Whose work are you reviewing? (Atallent, KRCPhilmon, DamianDanielly, TyraWashington) Link to draft you're reviewing: Being Digital

Lead

Guiding questions:

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

Lead evaluation

The lead was written well and interesting to read.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes Is the content added up-to-date? Yes Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes

Content evaluation

I'm not to sure what up to date means in an article like this, but the last edit was February 9th, so I'd say it's up to date based on that.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation

I didn't notice anything that felt like it was persuading me, so I think it's good.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, majority of the sentences are missing source links. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes Are the sources current? No Check a few links. Do they work? In the bibliography section they do, but in the reference section they all lead back to the article.

Sources and references evaluation

After every sentence there is supposed to be a link to the source, I'd just go back and add them in when you get the chance.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation

I didn't noticed any problems with this section.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article still seems a little short. What are the strengths of the content added? It let's just understand what kind of person Negroponte was. How can the content added be improved? Just expand more.

Overall evaluation

Overall the article is fine. I'd just say add more, but I understand we're all still working on it, so what y'all have so far is good.

TheSeedV (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)