User:Osa225/RI Works Program/Tcharwood73 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? (provide username) Osa225
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Osa225/RI Works Program

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Somewhat, could be clearer
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant
• Is the content added up-to-date? Most of the sources are relatively recent, save the 1998 one. Sometimes that cannot be helped
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The last section, "In Practice" is a little confusing, it may not be relevant. If it could be re-written more clearly it may make sense to keep

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? The content mostly seems neutral
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The last section may be biased, but it is unclear
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not really
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are sources to support all the material
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Unknown, this is another case of a program for a very small state, which can limit the amount of data on a subject.
• Are the sources current? Mostly, one is from the late 90's, but many are more recent.
• Check a few links. Do they work? The links I accessed worked

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is plainly written, but could use some going over to improve the flow to make it even clearer.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, there are a good number of grammatical and syntax errors, especially in the "background" section. If these were corrected, the flow of the whole article would be positively affected.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Most of the article is fairly well organized. I had previously complained about the last section. Its relevance and message are unclear to me.

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 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? Yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Unknown
• 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? It is mostly in keeping with conventions.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No. Links to other social programs could be useful, like the CCAP article does in the lead section.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It is a new article, with pretty good content, perhaps it could be more complete.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The background and qualifications section have good data, and a bit of history on the programs genesis from other aid programs.
• How can the content added be improved? The spelling, grammatical, and syntax mistakes need to be addressed. The "In Practice" section needs to be clarified and expanded so that it is more whole and relevant to the article.