User:PaigeCarmichael1/Section 8 (housing)/MrrrAndersonnn 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)
• Paige, 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?
• NA
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• NA
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• NA
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• NA
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
• NA

Lead evaluation

NA

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?
  • No

Content evaluation

9/10

Tone and Balance

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

9/10

Sources and References

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, although I personally prefer more than 7
  • Are the sources current?
    • Mosty
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

Sources and references evaluation

8/10

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?
• NA
• Are images well-captioned?
• NA
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• NA
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
• NA

Images and media evaluation

NA

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?
• NA
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
• NA
• 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?
• NA
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
• NA

New Article Evaluation

NA

Overall impressions

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?
  • Very in depth content. Lots of quality material from a few reliable sources. Sections are outlined well, easy to track, and help the reader break down content more succinctly.
• How can the content added be improved
  • Looks solid, as expected. Unclear at this time how overall content might be improved, but I have faith there will be improvement. Only recommendations would be to add some visual, include a little more data/sources. Overall good job though

Overall evaluation

8.75/10