User:98hmarie/Cyberbullying/Dancer0211 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? (provide username) 98hmarie
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Cyberbullying

Lead

Guiding questions:

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

The lead has not been updated. The current lead provides good information about the definition and history of the term. It has active links to Wikipedia pages of related and/or connected terms. It also gives a solid updated history about cyberbullying, and how the article will break down the sections. It could give more information about breaking down the sections.

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?

Content evaluation

The content is all up to date and relevant. It focuses on many different aspects of cyberbullying, all topical and relevant. There is not much content I can think of that is missing, as it talks about definitions, methods, law enforcement, research, legislation, harmful effects, and awareness all in great detail. Both harmful effects and awareness could be expanded upon, but everything that is written is relevant and belongs.

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

I think that the content adheres to a neutral tone. Many different view points are represented even to go as far as having 8 categories of research included. I think that there does not seem to be any biases, and if they existed, it would lean towards persuading readers that cyberbullying is bad. The text itself only slightly does this, while a majority comes from the physical content.

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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

All of the content is backed by sources, and the editor added more sources as they wrote. They all work and are updated and relevant to the topic at hand.

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

This article is very organized and is easy to follow. There are numerous subpages that allow readers to quickly hop from one idea to the next. The content its-self is simple and easy to read and 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

There are very few images after the first few subheadings. All of the images provided are visually appealing, and adhere to copyright regulations. Each image presented is well captioned and has active links to relating information. I think that more images should be added, as it will help the overall article become more visually appealing.

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?

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 is very well written and has a strong content base. I think that although not much needs to be added the article can benefit from additional pictures and more content on harmful affects and awareness. I think that adding more clear cut information on those fronts can elevate the article higher.