User:Alex Horley/Social stigma/MrrrAndersonnn 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)
 * Alex Horley (Alex_Horley)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Alex Horley/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Lead evaluation
NA

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, the entire draft is only 10 sentences. I would be shocked if there was nothing else to add about poverty and poverty stigma.

Content evaluation
3/10

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Mostly, the page claims that impoverished people are made out to be X because of X. Seems as though that correlation may be too strong, and the data supporting that claim is well over 20 years old.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes, one attached to the 6th source.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Probably, seeing as though the page is 10 sentences long
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
3/10

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * In all likelihood, no
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, some are 20+ years old, despite it being recommended that the oldest research used in the page be no more than 10
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
5/10

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No. Rather than ten sentences in 1 paragraph, I would suggest more depth into each of those sentences. Quadruple to content, at least. Because it is so bare, topics are discussed one after another with no transition

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


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

Images and media evaluation
NA

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?
 * Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * No very exhaustive, and could definitely use more sources
 * 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 inboxes, headings, leads, etc. Just 1 paragraph
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * No

New Article Evaluation
3/10

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?
 * Its concise, but that's probably the best thing going for it.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * There simply needs to be more content. It needs more current sources, and needs to be broken down by subject.

Overall evaluation
3/10