User talk:Kaduoos/Privacy concerns with social networking services

his 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? (Kaduoos) Link to draft you're reviewing: Privacy concerns with social networking services Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

The lead has been updated and it flows into the content that my peer has added. The lead discusses the privacy concerns and my peer's content adds into more specifics to get a better picture of the issue at hand and informs the audience that it is more of a pressing matter than one would suspect.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The lead introductory sentence could have a couple changes, for example by quickly noting the main point of the topic rather than starting off the disscussionwith expansion of social media

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The lead needs some restructure for the description of major sections to create a smooth and understandable transition

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

The lead ensures the conversation within the article stays within the same realm as the overall idea of information,

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead has some sentences that could be avoided, to create a quicker and consice lead overall.

Lead evaluation Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

The contact that is added stays relevant to the topic at hand discussing the privacy and specific social media platform that is being affected within the topic/conversation.

Is the content added up-to-date?

Unsure if this information is up to date.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I think the article could benefit from adding the privacy policy (main points) of the platforms for individuals to better understand the overall importance of the article.

Content evaluation Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

No, it looks like it needs to be sourced properly

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

From what I can see the source is missing and needs to be inputted into the article and information delivered.

Are the sources current?

n/a

Check a few links. Do they work?

Links work, go into another wiki info, but does not link to source information

Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The information written is easy to read and is clearly elaborated into the article.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No the information is grammatically acceptable

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

I think the article could use some reorganizing to create a more suitable method of understanding the major points..

Organization evaluation Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

No it does not include images

Are images well-captioned?

N/A

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

N/A

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

N.A

Images and media evaluation 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?

Yes

How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

Yes

Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary info boxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?

Yea

Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

No

New Article Evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

The information does assist the article in supporting the information and developing an example that showcases the issue at hand.

What are the strengths of the content added?

The content gives more specifics of the information being provided. It creates an example that many can relate to and are familiar with.

How can the content added be improved?

From my viewpoint inputting a source would be helpful, as well as reorganizing so the flow would be smoother.

Overall evaluation

I believe the article is open for improvement, but creates a great big picture idea from the get go and dives in to discuss the main point of the article. I find there to be much more information on this topic. It just needs to be direct information that can be organized in the right timeline form.