User:OTUAustinOligario/Gaming computer/Treehugger743 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

OTUAustinOligario

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:OTUAustinOligario/Gaming computer ^[1]
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Gaming Computer ^[2]

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead does include new information that is reflected in new content that has been added by this user and made changed to the lead to include a more summarized understanding of a gaming computer.
The new content in the lead does clearly describe the topic of this article
The lead does briefly describe the articles major sections and the added content gaps.
The lead includes topics that are discussed throughout the article.
The lead is concise and straight to the point.

Content

The content added is relevant to the topic and improves the topic with better understanding of what a gaming computer is, the hardware found in a gaming compute and more detailed information as to what gaming computers are used for and why they are better for the certain activity (live streaming, gaming and video/photo editing).
The content added is up to date.
I don't believe there is content missing from this draft.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - No

Tone and Balance

The content added is neutral with no biases.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - No
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No

Sources and References

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Yes, new information added is from reliable, respected sources and some are from the Ontario Tech online library.
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? - Yes
Are the sources thorough? - Yes, they are thorough and has the necessary information needed.
Are the sources current? - Yes, most of the sources are current and are not outdated.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Yes, I believe so.
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? - No, I think sources used are well respected and have the correct information regarding the new added content.
Check a few links. Do they work? - All links do work.

Organization

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes, content is well written and understandable to users who do not know the terminology of computers terms. With easy to read summaries and explanations of some terms for example, the hardware terms.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - I did not see any spelling errors or grammatical errors for the new content added.
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, the new content is well organized and flows well.

Images and Media

There were no news images added for the new content of this article.

Overall impressions

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - Yes, I do feel the new content added is useful to the original content as it explains more about the hardware and the main uses of gaming computers and why people choose to use gaming computers for those activities (livestreaming, gaming and video/editing).
What are the strengths of the content added? - The strengths of the new content is better description of the hardware of gaming computers, which helps readers understand how gaming computers differ from regular computers. And a better understanding of why people tend to chose gaming computers.

^ "User:OTUAustinOligario/Gaming computer", Wikipedia, 2021-04-20, retrieved 2021-04-27
^ "Gaming computer", Wikipedia, 2021-04-22, retrieved 2021-04-27

[1] "User:OTUAustinOligario/Gaming computer", Wikipedia, 2021-04-20, retrieved 2021-04-27

[2] "Gaming computer", Wikipedia, 2021-04-22, retrieved 2021-04-27

[1]

[2]