User:Vap2020/Housing insecurity in the United States/Csatke 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? Tori
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Vap2020/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes. I made a couple of adjustments how I think it may be even better (just restructuring).
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? See above.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I think you still wanted to add a little, but bottom line 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 concise, however, I would maybe try leading into the article a little better.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? YESS!! Good job :)
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I made a quick suggestion regarding the risk-factor section.

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.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. Maybe try using a couple more statistics to make a more compelling argument.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Mostly, see above.
• Are the sources current? Yes.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. I really like your writing style. You are to the point and grammatically correct.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Nope.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. I like that you added headings and an entirely new section. It makes the the site more organized.

Images and Media

N.A.

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

N.A.

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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. I especially liked the background section you added. I think it leads into the topic better, than how the article was originally structured.
• What are the strengths of the content added? Definitely the background section. However, I also like how you restructured the Risk Factor Section.
• How can the content added be improved? Try making the linkages within the Risk Factor section more clear. Also, try to work on the paragraph leading into the Risk Factors.