User:Adam conlon/Minimum wage/Regoc14 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? (provide username) Adam conlan
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Adam conlon/Minimum wage

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?
 * 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
There need not be a lead because the author is attempting to add a section to an already existing article that already includes a lead. With this said, the author should consider editing the current "lead" section of the article to briefly summarize the section he intends to add to the page. In other words: since the lead is intended to outline the sections of the article, and the author is adding a section to the article, then the author must expand the lead section to include a summary about the section he is creating.

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?

Content evaluation
I think that there is a lot of content that the author should consider adding. However, adding content may be overwhelming considering the fact that the article contains a large of information about the topic. Perhaps, the author should narrow his research on how the minimum wage relates/effects specific topics covered in our course. Also Professor Devine is specifically an expert on Labor Economics. It may be a good idea to consult her about possible articles that pertain to the minimum wage and its relationship to poverty, inequality and, discrimination. According to the page, there are already existing sections on the minimum wage's relationship to poverty and income inequality. However, these sections are relatively short. They could sure use some support! In addition, the URI online library has a large variety of information about the topic, including peer-reviewed articles and other secondary literature!

Also, the author's next step, in terms of content, should be to clarify and further explain what these "recent studies" are and expand on the information that they provide. It's good to see that the author has established something to work with, however it is important that the author definietly expands on these claims as well as provides citations. Any time a study is referenced, it must be cited.

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 over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is stated neutrally and does not appear persuasive at all; none of the claims appear to be biased.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The author definitely needs to include sources for the studies that the author references. There is a lot of insightful and factual information that the author needs to provides citations for (nearly every sentence requires some citation). The author should also expand their list of resources and references. The citation that the author provides does not seem to be properly cited. In order to provide a proper citation, the author should consider clicking the "cite" tab at the top of the screen and then pasting the citation into the space.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The author should consider thoroughly revising the structure of the section.
 * 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
The opening sentence of the section is pretty unclear, which is problematic considering it introduces the section's topic. The section seems to focus on the relationship between the "relative minimum wage" and the "national median wage" and how the national median wage causes "high impact areas". However, it is difficult to understand how some of these concepts relate to one another. The author should revise the structure of the sentences and be conscious of grammatical issues that render the article difficult to follow.

In addition, I'd advise adding a title to the section. Perhaps the author can simply name the section "Relative Minimum Wage"(?), or a title that captures the main topic of the section. In addition, I'd recommend that the author does not repeat certain similar-sounding phrases throughout the article: specifically, the author seems to over use the phrase "recent studies show". In addition, there are certain phrases in the section that appear unclear, specifically the phrase: "High impact meaning that these areas are at a higher risk for minimum wage policy to directly impact that community." I don't really understand what the author is trying to say, here.

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?

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?

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
My suggestions can be more thoroughly observed in the above "evaluation" sections of this page. My biggest suggestions would be revising the sentence structure of the article in order to make the article more clear. Above all, I'd advise the author to provide proper citations that adhere to Wikipedia's licence and policy. This is extremely important. Also, I'd recommend the author expands the current minimum wage page's sections on poverty and inequality. Also, the author should focus his research on the minimum wage's relationship to some of the topics and concepts discussed in this course.