User:Alex Horley/Social stigma/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): 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? 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
The current Wikipedia page on social stigma appears to already include a lead section. If you intend to add a section on social stigma in relation to economics, I'd make sure to edit the lead section of the current page so that the lead indicates that social stigma also relates to economics.

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
The content is somewhat up-to-date as it draws information from studies and articles performed/written in the late 90's. There seems to be a lot of information that could be expanded about stigma and poverty. I'd advise going to our peer review packet and looking up the list of references from the article we read about stigma (though these references may further be outdated). In addition, I'd advise researching key terms related to some of the concepts discussed in that article. Since you already are familiar with the stigma (having studied it in our class), you should be better able to expand on what you have learned from that study so that you can improve the contents of the article.

I think that nearly every claim made in the article requires more information.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of this article is objectively neutral. This is not an easy thing to do considering the fact that the subject of "stigma" is very sensitive in nature. As a result, being able to write in a mechanically technical way is a big advantage to the article.

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
Some of these sources appear to be outdated. Most of the sources only explain a small fraction of information. I'd advise reviewing the sources again and use the information from the sources to expand on each point. All the links appear to be functional.

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
The article is not very well organized and seems to compile a bunch of random facts from different sources about social stigma as it pertains to poverty and economics. The article however is easy to read but the general flow and the information within the article seems require its one section.

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
I'd advise expanding more from each of your sources and using information from each source as its own separate section. In addition, I'd include one of these sections on the article we read for class. This should be very easy considering the author should have a strong understanding of what that article entails and the findings of that article.I think the author should make sure that each section contains information that is relevant to that section as opposed to stringing together information that seems to not go together.

I think that the author has a great topic and one that they can easily expand on.