User:HunterKaimi/Cell dog/Lizzethmancilla 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?
- Yes, the lead reflects the new content that is going to be covered. For example, it mentions how/why cell dogs were created and information about the founder covered later.
  - However, with the new way it is formatted, it is missing the "lead paragraph" that usually goes at the top.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, I think it effectively covers what the article is about - it explains that the purpose of cell dogs are mutual between the inmate and dog.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No, there is no clear description that indicates the topics training, service dogs, and life after incarceration are going to be covered later.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No, everything in the lead is relevant to the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Concise, I think it does a good job of explaining the basic overview of what the topic is about.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes, all the content added is relevant. It is thorough and provides insight to different aspects of cell dogs.
Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes, the information provided comes from sources written in the past five years.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- No, I don't think there is any information that doesn't belong. There are sections underneath the main "Cell dogs" paragraphs that don't have any information yet, so I think that content is missing.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
- Yes, I think all the content is neutral. It is all written in a very informative tone.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No, none of the information is biased toward a particular position.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No, I think the article does a great job of describing the viewpoint in arguing pros for the inmates and pros for the dogs.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No, I find it very neutral.

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- One of the sites is a .edu site, but the other two aren't secondary sources. However, I think you should cite your sources more throughout the article.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, they are thorough and provide information on many different aspects of cell dogs such as success stories and mental health benefits.
Are the sources current?
- Yes, they are all from the past five years.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes, all the links work.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes, it is all well-written and easy to follow along with.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- A few, but I'm planning on copy-editing them.
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, however I think some of the information written can be broken down into smaller sections such as including a "Benefits of Cell Dogs" section.

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- There are currently no pictures in the article.
Are images well-captioned?
- N/A - there are none
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- N/A - there are no pictures
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?
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?
- All the information added really improved the article. It gives a lot more in-depth explanation of how cell dogs are used for prisoners. It is a lot more complete and definitely fills in gaps in the original article.
What are the strengths of the content added?
- I think it is all very well-written, neutral, and easy to follow along. I think the new sections added in make it a lot easier to see what the article is about/will be about (once all sections are filled in).
How can the content added be improved?
- I think it would be helpful to add in pictures. Maybe one of Sister Pauline Quinn if there's one or just some of cell dogs in general. Also, as I mentioned earlier, I found several parts in your article that I think are supposed to be cited. Also, adding in information for the other blank sections if you meant to add that in.