User:PaigeCarmichael1/Section 8 (housing)/Adam conlon 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? PaigeCarmichael1
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:PaigeCarmichael1/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it describes FMRs
• 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? Yes
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is a good length, not too long and not too short.

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? It does not appear so.

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? Yes they are good sources.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current? Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they all work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? n/a
• Are images well-captioned? n/a
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? 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? Yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There is more than sufficient sources
• 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? Yes
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes they are many links to other articles.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It is its own page.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths are that the content is very in-depth and descriptive.
• How can the content added be improved? n/a

Overall evaluation

The article was well written. The way the page was created made it easy to follow. This made for an interesting read as well as an informative one. I personally did not know anything about FMRs before reading this and I feel as though I could explain it to someone now.