Peer review[edit]

I will be peer reviewing Aaishwar's editing of the article Digital Divide.[edit]

Lead evaluation[edit]

The lead reflects the content added by my peer. It contains an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. However, it is not brief and to the point. The lead is very long and might include things that should not be placed under the lead, and instead under a new category. I would consider it a bit overly detailed. The lead does not include any information that is not in the article.

Content[edit]

The content is relevant to the topic, and it is up to date based on the sources cited. I do not believe that there is content missing.

Tone and Balance[edit]

The content includes some opinionated quotes from certain institutions, yet it does not favor any sides. It only presents in quotations different points of views around this topic. I don't think that the content added persuades the reader in favor of one position

Sources and References[edit]

All the content added is backed up with good and up to date sources. Some sources reflect literature on the topic.The links to the sources work!

Organization[edit]

Organization is good. Content is well written and there are no signs of grammatical errors. All content is organized into categories that are very well explained in the category section.

Images and Media[edit]

No images were added to the article

Overall impressions[edit]

I believe the content added has improved the overall quality of the article, it has made it more complete. Content added is brief and concise, very to the point. Maybe adding visuals could improve it?