User:Yessel Garcia/Rent regulation/Seanapplegate 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? Yessel Garcia
- Link to draft you're reviewing: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Yessel%20Garcia/Rent_regulation/Bibliography?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_bibliography
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, very.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Most definitely.
Content evaluation
[edit]The added content, as an entirely new section, creates a contextualized and structural perspective on the topic. It addresses relevant history as well.
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]While some may view this as a controversial topic, it presents the information neutrally. Be careful with the use of the word "capitalist", though.
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.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, with each source being from a different author.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The sources are used a substantial amount throughout the section, and incorporate an array of marginalized perspectives as well. Good job!
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]The added content is well suited to this new section. I am curious to see where it might go in the article.
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? The content added does well to address equity gaps, and the incorporation of a new section is a substantial improvement for that.
- How can the content added be improved? Potentially incorporating examples of social rights in rent regulation--either in current day or throughout the relevant history.
Overall evaluation
[edit]This new section reads as a necessary and useful addition to the article. It might be useful to explore the possibility of placing this information in the contemporary context of COVID-19.