User:Areyes12/At-risk students/Shafataryan Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Areyes12


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Areyes12/At-risk students
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * At-risk students

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - I'm not sure where this draft is going to be inserted, thus, I can't entirely confirm or evaluate the lead. Additionally, I don't think the lead was included in the edits of this draft. The introductory line is detailed, however it could be potentially improved by giving examples of the 'interventions', otherwise pretty solid paragraph.

Content

Is the added content relevant to the topic? - Yes, the topic is highly relevant as it concerns information about benefits of interventions for at-risk youth.

Is the added content up-to-date? - Yes, it's sourced from a 2015 research article.

Does the article address one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it discuss topics related to historically underrepresented populations? - Yes, it does. By observing at-risk youth, it directly addresses an underrepresented populations - at-risk youth.

Tone and Balance

Is the added content neutral in tone? - The tone is neutral over the entire draft, an attempts to present information about the impacts of intervention.

Are there overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints? - There doesn't seem to be any particular viewpoint that is being pushed.

Sources and References

1 source- a 2015 research article. It seems to be from a reputable journal (Journal of Urban History).

1 hyper-lined source from 2018. An academic article, also seems to be from a reputable journal.

Organization

Is the added content well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes, it's easy to read, and follow. It could potentially be improved if examples of such interventions were mentioned, or event some real-world case studies were mentioned that corroborate/supplement the claims made in the draft.

Does the added content contain any grammatical or spelling errors? - None.

Is the added content well-organized, broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, it's well organized.

Overall impressions

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - It's difficult to evaluate this question, as it's still unclear where exactly the information is going to be inserted- the legend doesn't include an option for plain bold text. However, the information seems useful and informative.

What are the strengths of the content added? - A big strength of this draft is in its easy-to-read nature- interventions are mentioned, then defined, and then their importance/impacts are discussed.