User:OKSESE/Positive computing/Secure Cyberspace 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?

OKSESE

Link to draft you're reviewing: Positive computing
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Positive computing

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead is concise and describes the articles topic clearly and in depth. However, it does not mention the major sections of the article. Otherwise, the lead sticks to the information that will be presented throughout the article and prevents itself from being overly detailed. It also is able to reflect the content of the article.

Content

All content is relevant to the topic of positive computing. The references are generally up-to-date, especially for topics surrounding AI and human-computer interaction (HCI). The content is pretty comprehensive, but it could be expanded upon with recent trends in positive computing such as using case studies or technologies like wellness apps.

Tone and balance

A neutral tone is maintained throughout the article, especially when various methods to ethical and responsible technology design are mentioned. There are no traces of biased claims so the article keeps an academic and balanced perspective on the topic. The article could benefit from the addition of more perspectives from fields like sociology or cultural studies to broaden the discussion of societal impacts. The article does not attempt to convince or persuade the reader into anything and remains objective.

Sources and references

The article is backed up by current, relevant, and reliable sources such as from credible websites and articles. The content accurately reflects the cited sources based on the information provided. Although the sources are generally thorough, more peer-reviewed articles on the applications of positive computing could enhance the article's depth. The sources are also diverse as they are written by various established authors in psychology and technology. The links do work and direct the reader to appropriate resources,

Organization

The content is well written, clear, and concise. The information provided is easy to follow and seems to have no grammatical or spelling errors. Everything is well-organized and the sections successfully reflect the major points made in them. However, the inclusion of subheadings under some sections such as the responsible design process could improve readability.

Images and media

The article only includes one image. Adding any related diagrams or infographics would have greatly enhanced the understanding of the information presented.

Overall Impressions

Overall, the content is enriched with in-depth topics on the psychological and ethical aspects of positive computing as well as practical approaches for designing technology with well-being in mind. The article's strengths lie in its focus on the design process, the clear description of positive computing principles, and its alignment with ethical technology development. However, the article could be improved with more visuals and providing additional perspectives from other fields that are related.