User:Jacklunch209/User:Jacklunch209/History of YouTube/Tug99021 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?
  • Jacklunch209
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jacklunch209/History of YouTube

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • A lead was added to his draft page to help the peer reviewer, but he did not make any edits to the actual lead of the wikipedia page. The rest of these questions are N/A because of this.
• 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?

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • The content added to the article is relevant to its orgins. It helps the reader gain a better context of what led to the site's creation and the other competitors present.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • For the most part they seem to be, the original author and the student I am peer reviewing chose to focus on the orgins of youtube and its history as relevant to the early 2000s. Because of this, new information is not needed.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • I would recommend for my peer reviewer to end on a more conclusory note than listing Hurley and Chen's profits. The paragraph reads as if it not entirely finished.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes, the tone of the content is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No their topic is rather uncontroversial.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • If anything the author added a more wide array of viewpoints and perspectives.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No user bias is not an issue in this case

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Portions of the original text (portions left unchanged by the author) are not backed up by sources, however I am assuming they just did not carry over when my peer copied them. Despite this, if they actually did not cite sources I would implore the offer to find where the original author derived them from.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • The sources my peer selected are thorough and appear credible. Despite this, some are from lesser known websites. While they still appear legitimate I would triple check when adding links to gauge their legitimacy.
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes they are current as they need to be.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • The ones that I clicked had no issues, and I clicked all 4 additional references.

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?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

N/A

For New Articles Only

N/A

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • Yes the contented has fleshed up an existing article and made a section of it much more clear.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The content makes the original writing sound less choppy and adds statistical data.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • As I previously said, there could be a sentence or two that more adequately summarize the last few points.

Overall evaluation

I really enjoyed this article. Aside from a few technical issues, I think you are in a good place. If you fix the aforementioned issues with the article, I would also recommend for you to add additional contributions to more sections.