User talk:Lkd36/Alclear/2k415 Peer Review

Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)

Lkd36 Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lkd36/sandbox Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes includes more info on the origin and founder Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Could make the first sentence clearer about what exactly the topic is Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes it provides much more information about the origins as well the technology Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Pretty concise Lead evaluation Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes the information provided is all relevant Is the content added up-to-date? Most is from mid 2010's, could maybe need some more relevant sources Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All the content is related to Al Clear. 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? Most are academic sources or well respected news outlets. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are very diverse showing that they used multiple sources available to them. Are the sources current? Most are around 5 years old so may be good to find a couple current sources as well. Check a few links. Do they work? Links work Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is 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? The organization is really good and breaks down complex sections well. 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? Includes link to image because they couldnt paste it. Are images well-captioned? No caption on the picture Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? 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? 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? Yes added a ton of information to the article What are the strengths of the content added? Explains the technology more as well the controversy with it How can the content added be improved? Maybe decrease the amount of the content and condense it but overall good