User:Akanai14/Disability studies in education/Joy4heart 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)
 * I am reviewing Akanai14
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Akanai14/Disability_studies_in_education&action=history

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 but seems to be concise and not overly detailed. The user has drafted some additions to the lead that would provide more information for the reader. The opening sentence of the lead is concise and clearly describes the articles topic.

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 user added a good amount of references to the article to make it more update and the information relevant. There does still seem to be some content missing. I could not find in the article if it states where disability studies takes place. Does this article refer to a worldwide perspective or a national one? It seems the article could use some more updated information and citations to verify that the information stated is all relevant.

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
The content added seems to have a neutral perspective. The content is aimed at informing and not persuading on one way or the other. At times it does slightly come off the the social model is better than the medical model so I would just be careful with the wording so that it is clear that it is a reaction and not the superior model.

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
I believe all new content is sited and referenced to a reliable source but overall the article could use more references and citations. The links that I checked all worked and seem the be relevant and current. They also seem to be from a variety of backgrounds and diverse. I think more links could be added to other pages as well and like the article states at the top, this article should be linked in another article.

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
I think the article is organized well and in a way that is easy to read and understand. I feel like more sections could be added since there are only two but I'm not sure what they would be so I think this is fine for now. The content that was added to the issue section is very good and enhances the article greatly.

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
I see that the user noted about adding an image. I think that would really help the article and add to the overall visual appearance of it.

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
Overall I think the user has done an excellent job adding to the article. It seems much more complete and all the content added seems relevant and has added in the overall strength of the article. I would suggest that the user continues to add links and citations to back up the work that is already in the article and if possible add an image otherwise great work!