User:PaigeCarmichael1/Section 8 (housing)/Chiqueno Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
- PaigeCarmichael1
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- 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?
Lead evaluation
[edit]N/A
Content
[edit]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? No
Content evaluation
[edit]Good differentiation with fair market vs small fair market. Are these the only breakdowns of fair market that exist? Good job with the article links and the references provided in text.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?No
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]Good job staying neutral in the study section while going into detail.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
- 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
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Organization
[edit]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
Organization evaluation
[edit]Would it make sense to put the study on small fair markets into one big section? Also did you rename the "studies" section to criticism, or are you just adding a criticism section under the studies because it does appear you are still having a section dedicated to studies. The split between fair markets and small fair markets, along with the two studies added was organized well where they are.
Images and Media
[edit]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
[edit]N/A
For New Articles Only
[edit]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?
New Article Evaluation
[edit]N/A
Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- How can the content added be improved?
Overall evaluation
[edit]It was very detailed and explained factually. Done professionally with article links and external references. It goes into great detail about fair market rents. Just the section headings were a bit confusing under studies.