User:APG2000/Libertarian perspectives on immigration/17lpratt 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

 * Review of APG2000: "Libertarian Perspective on Immigration"
 * Link to draft: User:APG2000/sandbox

Lead
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
The Lead does not appear to have been updated, as there was mostly content added to the body of the piece. I believe that the introduction could use a little more clarification--it does not start out by describing what the libertarian view on immigration is, but instead by identifying the importance of this view in libertarian theory, followed by a quote justifying the viewpoint of non-interference by the government. While I believe these are good inclusions, the introduction would be clearer if it explicitly described what the view was [i.e. open borders] briefly before describing its importance and the reasoning behind the view.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content of this draft was very relevant to the topic, as it discussed a few more libertarian perspectives on immigration that were not described in the original article. Although this new content has similarities to the preexisting article, it also adds in the idea of private property and individual rights in reference to the idea of immigration and open borders--with an emphasis on the protection of citizen's rights. The content appears up to date and relevant, as it clearly described how these libertarians feel about immigration, their suggestions to improve it and their reasoning behind this view.

This article/draft does not include an information on historically underrepresented populations, such as immigrants themselves, in relation to possible critiques or conflicting attitudes toward immigration. I think the addition of some critiques of libertarian perspectives from other theorists may be helpful in expanding the conversation, although it makes sense for the libertarian perspective to be more prevalent since that is the focus of the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
This article is informational and neutral, but as mentioned previously, it does not account for other views on immigration or critiques of the libertarian views. I think the inclusion of some critiques may be helpful to provide a complete account of the various theories, to represent both the support for these libertarian theories as well as some reservations that other theorists may have toward it.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All of the information present in this draft are backed up by secondary sources; one suggestion I do have is to include less quotations, and to instead explain the concepts in your own words to represent the ideas discussed. While a few quotations may be helpful, this draft includes four quotations, each a few lines in length and not all of which seem necessary to quote verbatim. I'd suggest picking the most impactful/informational quotations, and then try to explain the other ones through paraphrase in order to improve the flow of the article. This way you can directly relate the different perspectives in your own words as well without breaking up the discussion with quotations.

The sources included are all by Murray Rothbard or his student Hans-Hermann Hoppe--both are libertarian theorists and economists so their viewpoints are very helpful and informative inclusions to the article, which did not previously feature their work. These views offer a broader range of perspectives to the article, since in the original version there was a focus on open borders and a brief comment on closed-borders. This draft expands on this by relating immigration to private property where the individual can decide who they want on their property, rather than by a government-made decision.

Even though not all of these sources are peer-reviewed journal articles, I think they are appropriate for this particular article since it is representing the stance of libertarian theorists, in order to expand on their understanding and views of immigration. They are also relatively current, as each of the articles is from the 1990s. The links also appear to work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
As mentioned in the previous section, I believe the replacement of some quotations with a clear paraphrase will help improve the flow of the article, as well as allow you to connect ideas from different sources rather than just jump from perspective to perspective. There do not appear to be any grammatical or spelling errors throughout this piece--the diction was clear and neutral throughout as well.

Images and Media
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
There are no images present in or added to the article.

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?
 * 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
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I believe this draft was well-done in expanding on the perspectives present in the article to show a wider range if libertarian viewpoints on immigration. The main two critiques I have for improving the article is to paraphrase more of the quotations so that the article flows more cohesively and concisely, and for the addition of some perspectives from critics so that the reader is informed of both the support for and criticism against these libertarian theories on immigration.