User:Macerpa/Poverty law/Msigua Peer Review

Peer review

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

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Macerpa
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User talk:Macerpa/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • lead is the one being edited
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • the lead is elaborated upon more than what is already stated
• 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?
  • yes
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • should be written more concisely if possible

Content evaluation:

The lead should be concise according to wikipedia, though I agree that the original lead should be elaborated upon; for as you stated, there are various aspects to poverty law, not just what is written there. However, it would be good to find a way to edit the examples that you have to make them more concise.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • n/a
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • n/a
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • n/a

Tone and balance evaluation

overall good tone and balance! sentences are kept short and straight to the point.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation:

no citations currently posted

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?

Organization evaluation:

Sentence structure variety would help, but I am thinking that this will also come with the edits when you make the edits more concise. I think it's currently just an outline, so looking forward to seeing how you integrate these aspects with each other.

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?

Images and media evaluation

n/a

For New Articles Only

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?

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?