User:Adam conlon/Minimum wage/Tcharwood73 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 conlon
 * 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? Contribution either doesn't have a lead, or is exclusively a lead. This is confusing because there are no headings, at least in the draft that I've read.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? If the contribution is dedicated solely to relative minimum wage, then it is somewhat explained initially.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The article (or addition) is not divided in sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Once again, the lead and body could be distinguished.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead must could be developed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content seems relevant, but sparse.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? sources appear to be somewhat dated, so it is uncertain if the content is current.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There could be a greater elaboration on relative minimum wage. If the contribution will eventually be segmented, other ideas merit exploration.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content seems neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There doesn't seem to be a bias towards a particular agenda.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? As far as balance, no, viewpoints are not overrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, content doesn't attempt to persuade.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, content does not adequately cite sources and sources are not included in the conventional way. More sources need to be included and all content needs appropriate citation to prove its veracity.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Exclusively because the quantity of sources is so spare, no. Also, at least one of the sources is quite dated (38 years old).
 * Are the sources current? No, hopefully once you collect more sources, most of them should be considerably newer.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There are no links included within this contribution.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is well-written and if you expanded the content with this same writing style, it would serve you well to continue to write in this style.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Believe should be belief. A few bits of punctuation are omitted but minor.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, as previously stated, this work will require sections so that the content flow more logically.

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? No, obviously you know how many sources you need and I assume you are working to find more.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No
 * 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? No, article does not follow conventions of wikipedia. Firstly, requires more sources and to cite your claims, a lead section, and to be organized with section headings.  After this if you seek to add other media, that would be wise, so long as graphs, images, etc. add to the value of the content (relevant).
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? No, this content is lacking currently and just needs expansion all the way around.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The ideas within the piece are interesting. Relative minimum wage is particularly interesting.  If you were to gather more data about relative minimum wage for comparison and potentially use some charts or graphs, this would be a great add to your work.
 * How can the content added be improved? Focus on fundamental stuff before you work on flourishes. Gather at least 4 more sources, cite all your claims, add a lead section that gives a little background about everything you'll add, and add section headers so you can more clearly communicate what ideas you are developing.  Its just going to need a bit more content, but as you add sources, you will find good content to include in your work.  After that, then I would start to consider smaller details, like pictures, linking out to related articles, etc.