User:VQuiche/Online piracy/Ijustinns Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- No, the lead has not been updated or changed since the original.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- No, it is the exact same as the old one, and is only one sentence.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No, it needs a brief description of the article's major sections.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes, it gives an overall description.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The lead is too concise, and needs more to be added.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes, the content that is added that is relevant to the topic. The history of the subject was added with a lot more detail and a longer timeline of the history created a wider range of information. More benefit section was added as well, along with tools.
Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes, all the content is within 20 years of the publication of this article.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- No, it all seems to fit and are relevant to the subject.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
- I think most of the article is neutral, there are just some wordings that could shade the article in a certain direction, whether negative or positive.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No, no claims are heavily biased toward a particular position.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No, I do not think that there are over or under-represented viewpoints within this article.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No, it does not favor any side, it provides both sides for the most part, which is very balanced.

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes, all the sources are secondary and are reliable from journals, books, and articles.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, checking through the sources, they do reflect literature on the topic.
Are the sources current?
- Yes.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- I checked the links, and they do work.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes, I see a chronological order in the sections that give background information. But I do think the ethics section could be organized better, and maybe more information can be added to it.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No errors found!
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, but maybe organizing into more sub-points would help.

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- There are no images that have been added to the article. It would be good to add images possibly, for the history of the subject maybe!
Are images well-captioned?
- There are no images to be captioned.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- No images to go off of.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- No images to go off of.

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?

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- I think that you added a lot more background information to the article, which helps a lot! I would make it more organized by having subheadings to separate certain parts so the reader knows where to go to for specific information.
What are the strengths of the content added?
- I think the addition of more background and history made the article a lot better.
How can the content added be improved?
- Try playing around with using images or media to help, and organizing subheadings in the main points as well!