User talk:Lendawg2303/Coinbase

Joseph Schrum's 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? Lendawg2303 Link to draft you're reviewing: Coinbase Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead appears to be up to date. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it effectively summarizes the main aspects of Coinbase. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does not say much about the history section. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise and could possibly even be a little more detailed. Lead evaluation

Overall, the lead concisely summarizes the most important aspects of Coinbase. However, the lead does leave out most of the history section and it may be worthwhile to include some of the main points from that section.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Content evaluation

The content appears to be relevant, however it may need some updates. The history section leaves off at August 2019, but there have probably been noteworthy events since then. I didn't notice any out of place content or anything obviously missing.

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

The content appears to be neutral, listing both good and bad things in the history section. There is a complaints section which highlights one of their controversies, but doesn't mention anything else. If there have been any other major controversies they should probably be added.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Check a few links. Do they work? Sources and references evaluation

There are a lot of sources for this article and they appear to be primarily from reputable sites. All the links I checked worked and I believe this is a good combination of sources.

Organization

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? Organization evaluation

The content is well-written and fairly easy to read. I did not find any errors and the organization is good. It is broken into clearly labeled sections with the history section in chronological order and easy to follow.

Images and Media

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? Images and media evaluation

The only media is the name Coinbase. This is a good image but if they have any other logos these could be useful.

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? 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 Overall impressions

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? Overall evaluation

Overall, this article seems to be pretty good. The most important thing I would try to add would be any other major events since August 2019 or any other big controversies in their past.

Devrat Patel's Peer Review
General info

Whose work are you reviewing? Lendawg2303 Link to draft you're reviewing: Coinbase

Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead seems up to date 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? No, it does not Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is very concise. Can be more detailed Lead evaluation - The lead is concise and it does not have a brief description of the sections. However, it reflects the latest information.

Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant to the topic. Is the content added up-to-date? The latest information about the topic came from 2019. It may need some update to reflect the information that came in 2020 Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No Content evaluation - Overall good content. Need some sorting though

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? Nothing like that Does the content added to attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No Tone and balance evaluation - Overall neutral tone and balanced point of view. There is a section about complaints but it does not lead a reader to any biased opinion

Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all-new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes Are the sources current? Yes and No Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? cannot tell Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they all work Sources and references evaluation - I checked a few sources and they all worked. However, there are a few places where it says that "Sources needed"

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? Very few Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes Organization evaluation - Overall well-organized article. The history section is a bit long but it follows the chronological order of events.

Images and Media 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? Images and media evaluation - The only image in the article is named Coinbase.

Overall impressions 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? Overall evaluation - Overall the article looked complete except for the part where they did not include events that happened in the year 2020. Dqp5391 (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)