User:Pv2020/Computer literacy/Oakinfe1 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) Pv2020
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Computer literacy

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?

- The lead is informative and concise although does not give a brief description of the article's major 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?

- The Background section does not offer relevant information and it was not focused enough. After reading it, I do not feel still do not feel knowledgable about that subsection.

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?

- The tone of the article is neutral with no clear biases. I think if choosing to mention the U.S. and U.K. it might be worth mentioning computer literacy in other countries as well.

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?

- Links work. Sources could be more thorough, there is a lot of info on computer literacy that could still be reflected in the article but are not.

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?

- The article is not well organized. For example, the background section does not offer any real background, and the U.S. and U.K. history sections do not offer a thorough enough recount of computer literacy history in the countries considering all of the info available. Also info under digital divide subheading does not contribute to a good understanding of what the digital divide is.

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?

- 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?

- I think the article contains a lot of unnecessary information and is missing a lot of important information considering I think there is a lot of information about computer literacy. It also seems to confuse (and use interchangeably) computer and digital literacy which are two different things.

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, the article still needs a lot of work. Most urgently, a clearer definition of computer literacy and a clearer understanding of that versus digital literacy.