User:Sasharoach/User:Maddiedufault/End Overdose Non-Profit/Sasharoach Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Maddiedufault

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Maddiedufault/End Overdose Non-Profit

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

n/a

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

Guiding questions:

• The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added
• The lead does not include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic- there is no lead, just goes into content
• The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections (no lead)
• The lead does not include information that is not present in the article (no lead)
• The lead is not concise or overly detailed (no lead)

Content

Guiding questions:

• The content added is relevant to the topic
• The content added is up-to-date
• There is not content that does not belong, but is missing a lead
• The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, and does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• The content added is neutral
• There are not claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position
• There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented
• The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• All new content is not backed up by a reliable secondary source of information- there are no sources
• The content does not accurately reflect what the cited sources say- there are no sources
• Sources are not thorough - there are no sources
• Sources are not current- there are no sources
• Sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors, they do not include historically marginalized individuals where possible- there are no sources
• There are better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites- no sources listed
• Links do not work- no sources listed

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Content added is well-written - i.e. It is concise, clear, and easy to read
• The content added does not have any grammatical or spelling errors
• The content added is. well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• The article does not include images that enhance understanding of the topic
• Images are not well captioned- no images
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There are no images
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There are no images

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• The article does not meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. The article is not 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? there are no sources- list is not exhausted
• The article follows the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contains any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles
• The article does not link to other articles so it is more discoverable

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• The content added has improved the overall quality of the article -it is all new information to wikipedia and is valuable
• Strengths: clear background and context of the non profit, very thorough and lengthy information
• Content can be improved by adding images, sources, and more clearly defining sections (Underlining and increasing text size of headings)