Talk:Militarization of the internet

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? (provide username) Internet Militarization Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AcademicAlien/Internet Militarization Lead[edit] Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No 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? The lead does not give an overview of the topics presented in the article. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No Lead evaluation[edit] The Lead needs more content in terms of evaluating the information presented throughout the article and a concise definition over the topic.

Content[edit] 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? No. Content evaluation[edit] Content has a nice layout, however seems a bit brief in some sections. For example, the creation of ARPAnet could use some expansion in terms of exactly what the organization created.

Tone and Balance[edit] 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? Some parts are underrepresented. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. Tone and balance evaluation[edit] Overall, tone and balance is well and neutral. The writing is not trying to persuade the reader in any way.

Sources and References[edit] 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. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. Sources and references evaluation[edit] All the sources are recent, reliable, and the links work to access the material.

Organization[edit] Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Clear and easy to read, however a bit general and not specific. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A few grammatical errors. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The organization of the content is precise and works well for the topic. Organization evaluation[edit] Overall, the organization of the article is well and concise.

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

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No Are images well-captioned? No Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No Images and media evaluation[edit] There wasn't any images or media for this article.

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? Yes How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It accurately represents the subject, however there isn't a list of sources at the end of the article. 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? No it is missing a couple key components of a typical Wiki Article. For example, the heading of each topic could be edited more to make a clear distinction between different topics. Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? I'm not sure how to check this? New Article Evaluation[edit] Article fallas within Wikipedia's Notability, however the layout of the article could use some improvement to mimic a typical Wiki Article. For example, changing some of the print to make distinctions and expanding on the material.

Overall impressions[edit] Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is in a great developing stage. What are the strengths of the content added? All of the content provides reliable sources to the content. How can the content added be improved? Expand and don't generalize a couple sections. (be specific) Overall evaluation[edit] Article is in a great developing stage! A couple edits to expand on the topic more and a broad/precise lead section could create a great article.

Peer Review by Fit21

Here is my peer review of your article! I linked my review, as I was a little confused how to show you. I copied and pasted my review below, but it may be easier to read what I've linked. hhttps://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:AcademicAlien/Internet_Militarization/Fit21_Peer_Review?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review

General info AcademicAlien Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AcademicAlien/Internet Militarization Lead

Guiding questions:

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

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content gives information about Internet Militarization from multiple countries. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it is up-to-date Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Is Russia's cyber attack on the US considered Internet Militarization?

Content evaluation Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content is neutral, providing facts. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. 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? No, the article does not. Tone and balance evaluation

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are 3 sources cited Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. Are the sources current? Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work, and are linked to other Wikipedia articles.

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 well-writien, but does not provide a reason as to why I am reading about certain topics, i.e. Russian and Japanese internet; it jumps right into it. Why, as a reader, is it important for me to reaed about it? Maybe when the lead is finished, it will provide a more concise view-point. Article needs more flow. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Only a few spelling errors. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? With the lead I think the article will reflect the major points of the topic; article needs more organization. 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? 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

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 the article has 2-3 reliable sources. How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I am not sure how much literature is out there on this subject, but I think that the group did extensive research. 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? Not entirely, subheadings and info boxes are needed. Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, it does.

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?' This is a very interesting topic, and I am interested to see where this article is heading! What are the strengths of the content added? I like how the article does not just tralk about American internet militarization; the article touches on internet militarization in other parts of the world. How can the content added be improved? Overall evaluation

Fit21 (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Fit21