User:Alex Horley/Social stigma/Osa225 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? 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?It is concise.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?There is not much content on the topic. There is only a section on poverty.

Content evaluation
4/10

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I would check the second to last sentence because it is biased.
 * 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? No

Tone and balance evaluation
4/10

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? They are sorta generalized about poverty.
 * Are the sources current? Some of them are over 20 years old.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
6/10

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? I recommend dividing the one section into subsections and add more information about each subsections.

Organization evaluation
5/10

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

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, there could be more articles on the specifics of the topic.
 * 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
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No

New Article Evaluation
4/10

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It needs improvement
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is easy to read and does provide a broad understanding of poverty.
 * How can the content added be improved? There needs to be more subsections and specific articles on the topic.

Overall evaluation
4/10