User:Abains1721/Homelessness and mental health/Tasfiaxnawal 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? Abains1721
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Abains1721/Homelessness and mental health/Bibliography

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/A
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? N/A

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, the content is relevant to this article.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes the content is current.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

The content fits into the sections, and she even makes her own. They don't seem to be missing or incomplete.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, it deals with the homeless population that has been historically underrepresented.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes the content added is neutral.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No they aren't heavily biased.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

There is nothing that I noticed as such.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No there is no attempt to do so.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, they are backed up by evidence.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes they are thorough and used throughout the contributions.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes, the sources are current.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

There is a good range, but I'd say to include authors from this marginalized group too.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes they do.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes it is well-written.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No, there are no errors.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, they are well organized.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes the article is more complete and has more research based evidence.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

She uses a lot of citations and research.


 * How can the content added be improved?

I think she should just follow through with her talk section and it would be great!