User talk:Dqp5391/Financial technology

Peer review[edit] This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info[edit] Whose work are you reviewing? dpq5391 Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Dqp5391/Financial technology and Talk:Financial technology Lead[edit] Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has not been updated in the sandbox, but I will be working through the article talk page. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead currently has a strong introduction that defines financial technology. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it does not have a brief description of the article's sections. It mentions how smartphones are used for financial technology, but there is no further explanation of that in the article. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It mentions startups in the lead, but not in the actual article. This could be a good section to include in the article. From my experience, I know that the financial technology start ups are a good source for inexperienced online traders and bankers. This could add more value to the article. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, but I would make sure everything mentioned in the lead is able to be explained in the article. Lead evaluation[edit] Content[edit] Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added matches the topic. Definition could be more concise. It is a little vague and needs a better source. Is the content added up-to-date? The content is not up to date. Most of the facts are from 2015 or 2008. This can all be updated to have more relevant information and examples. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Technologies could be expanded into sub categories to have better format. I am not sure what the awards section does for the article. This should be about financial technology. Keep the focus on that. Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? To some degree I think it does represent the underrepresented populations. but, I also think that the article does this on a surface level. Financial technology industry is always changing and is now developed into a large industry, so some of this information seems out of date to me. Content evaluation[edit] Tone and Balance[edit] Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Content is very neutral and reports the facts of the financial technology. The only section I would consider editing is the "Industry Context." Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? As stated above, the "Industry Context" section must be revised to have better information. It is one sided and only talks about one company and one musician. There should be more examples and relate it back to the main topic. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The definition section is very misleading. Talk more about the industry and what it does, who are the key players, etc. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? For the most part, I think the information is accurate. It is outdated and needs to have more detail, but I think it represents both sides. Tone and balance evaluation[edit] Sources and References[edit] Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There is no new content. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Past sources are thorough. Are the sources current? Sources are from 2015,2016,2017. There are no new sources from this edit. But, I think that the industry is always changing so there are better sources available. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The old sources are written by multiple authors and cover a variety of topics. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work. Sources and references evaluation[edit] Organization[edit] Guiding questions:

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

Organization evaluation[edit] Images and Media[edit] Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

No images or media was added.

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? Images and media evaluation[edit] For New Articles Only[edit] 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? New Article Evaluation[edit] Overall impressions[edit] Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? All of these questions can not be answered because no content has been added.

Overall evaluation[edit]