User:Alex Horley/Social stigma/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) 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? Not yet, as far as I know. It's a fairly dense article so I expect if it does get included in a lead section, it will be in a sub-section.  You could add your own small lead, but since there is only one section, it seems undue.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? There isn't a lead, but since there is only one idea explored it may not be needed.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is only one section
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant to the topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Half the sources are quite dated, but the other half are fairly recent so maybe the content is representative of current poverty stigma realities.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content is a bit bare-bones right now. It could stand to be expounded on, especially with some kind of empirical support for claims.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The whole of the addition is geared towards the premise that there is stigma regarding poverty, but the sources are supportive.
 * 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

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? this is uncertain, but the sources are reliable and support the position the article takes.
 * Are the sources current? About half the articles are >20 years old, and the other half are current. If any more sources are included, it would be useful if they were as up to date as possible.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is very easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The writing appears error free.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There is not so much content that it could be presented in a disorganized way, but all the content is relevant, so it feels organized.

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? This is valuable content and I do believe that stigma regarding poverty is worthy of exploration.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The subject is good and the writing style is clear and well-written. The sources also appear to be from legitimate, academic sources.
 * How can the content added be improved? This is just a case of needing more content. If a few more sources could be collected, especially some where you could include their observations in terms of data. This will prove especially useful when you go to include visual aids.  If you have access to graphs or charts, it will be a boon to the article.