User:Aajoseph12/Online disinhibition effect/Kzw53 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)
  • Peer review of Aajoseph12's article.
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Aajoseph12/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • The Lead looks like it has been updated to reflect the new content added by the peer.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • The Lead does include an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The Lead does not include description of the article's major sections.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No, the Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The Lead is concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, the content is added is relevant to the topic.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, the content is up to date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • There does not seem to be any information that is missing, or any 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?
  • No, the article does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps, or address any historically underrepresented populations of topics.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes, the content added neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • There are no claims, that appear heavily biased towards a particular position.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes, the new content is backed up by reliable secondary source information.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • The sources seem to reflect the literature on the topic.
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes, the sources are current, although there is only one that is actually used within their in-text citations.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Yes, the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. No, they do not include historically marginalized individuals where possible.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes, the links work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, the content is well-written.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • The content added does not 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?
  • Yes, the content added is well-organized.

Images and Media

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?
  • There are no images.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • There are no images.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Again, there are no images.

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?
  • Yes, the content added seems to improve the overall quality of the article, and helps it come across as more complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The classifications section is very strong for helping show the importance of cyberspace. It also helps how there are a lot of intext citations, and links to other articles within the text.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • The content could be added to or improved by adding some images and using more of the resources in the in-text citations.