User:Mwill347/4ocean/Msdv613 Peer Review

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

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) = Mwill347
• Link to draft you're reviewing: 4ocean

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has not been updated to reflect the new information added, but I don't believe it was needed because there were existing sections that the user just added information to.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does, it introduces the company and its purpose.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it does not.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, it includes some information that is not mentioned again in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise and to the point and explains the company and it's purpose well.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it is relevant and adds to the sections of "History" and "Business model".
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes it is up to date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, there is not, all information is relevant and adds to the topic nicely.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes, all content is neutral and informational.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, everything is presented straightforward and neutral.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, nothing is biased.

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all information added has a cited source that backs up the information.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
• Are the sources current? Yes, every source is dated within the past 2 years, nothing older.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? All content added is placed within its appropriate section in the article.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, all content throughout the article is well organized.

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? N/A
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
• 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? N/A
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content added has definitely helped make an impact on the overall completeness of the article.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The content added helped readers understand more of the history of the company talked about and even spoke of their business model and why they do what they do.
• How can the content added be improved? The content added was already great overall, more information can always be added to help strengthen it, but overall, everything was done well.