User:Arianacoletta/User:Imadoor98/sandbox1/Arianacoletta Peer Review

Peer review
General Info:

• reviewing Imadoor98 's sandbox for the Anti Cruelty Society (User:Imadoor98/sandbox1)

• User:Imadoor98/sandbox1

Lead:

• The lead vaguely reflect the content of the article; could even be more concise which would potentially make it stronger; comes across as more of a summary than a preview

• Yes the lead has an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic

• The lead previews the "Adoption" section of the article but leaves me wondering where the "veterinarian services" heading is

• Leaves me looking for an elaboration on the multiple Chicago locations as well as elaboration on the current president/board

• Could be more concise which would potentially make it stronger; comes across as more of a summary than a preview

EVAL: The lead is slightly misleading and slightly over informative, but it does introduce and clearly inform the reader about the topic. After reading the lead, I feel confident that I know the importance of the article. It is not the strongest reflection of the most important information discussed later in the article though which is slightly confusing, but it does slightly allude to it. It is just missing a more straightforward preview of the articles contents.

Content:

• The content is in fact relevant, although vague. The history heading however seems to be floating because it is not previewed in the lead.

• The content appears to be up to date. There is no info for 2011-2020 but that could simply be because there is nothing significant to report from this time period.

• As stated before, I feel as though the article is missing headings about the veterinarian services, Chicagoland locations, and current president/board as they were all mentioned in the lead. In the last heading "Adoptions" I feel as though a lot of information is missing. It seems very vague and as a non profit that serves as an adoption service I expected to learn more. Also, this section mentions "no kill" but there is no elaboration or context (or even a link to another wiki article so they can click on it and educate themselves), so it could be confusing for readers that have no knowledge of it.

• In terms of information that does not belong, I feel as though the information about horses under the Great Depression is misplaced, or perhaps belongs there just needs to be tied in to that time frame (seems like it could fit better elsewhere). In that same subheading it states that the society is run on donations, which also seems like misplaced information, unless it was solely run on funds during the Great Depression and not anymore? In the "Adoption" heading it seems that the sentence about the vice president seems like it only half fits under this heading? It is more of a fun fact and less of a crucial fact, unless your'e stating the number of adoptions every year or the length of time it takes to find homes for those 6000 animals or some sort of context. In the "Mission" heading the last sentence seems misplaced, could potentially fit under the "Adoption" heading.

EVAL: Overall there is useful content throughout this article. I feel as though there are a lot of holes in the information or lack thereof. The organization of the sections is excellent beginning with the mission then going in to history, and especially the highlight of chronological order in the history. One thing I noticed is that the mission heading contains a direct quote, which could potentially be put into your own words.

Tone and Balance:

• The content is absolutely neutral.

• There is no apparent bias.

• The "Adoption" heading seems very underrepresented. There does not seem to be any overrepresentation of any information.

• There is no attempts at persuasion.

EVAL: It feels as though the articles length is not reflective of the importance of the topic.

Sources and References:

• Half, 4 of the 8, sources are from the Anti Cruelty Society website, therefore a majority of the sources are not from a secondary source. One source does not have a link at all.

• All sources appear thorough and reliable.

• Sources are fairly current.

• All links work.

EVAL: More sources could be beneficial. There is an abundance of unsourced content.

Organization:

• The content is concise and easy to read, at some points the content is unclear.

• I do not see any grammatical nor spelling errors, just be sure to pick one word for the two parts in the article where two similar words are offered in parenthesis.

• The article is very well organized. All of the headings and subheadings flow in a nice order.

EVAL: Overall the article is easy to read and is arranged in a clear to follow order.

Images and Media:

• There are no images nor media.

PEER REVIEW GUIDING QUESTIONS:


 * 1) First and foremost this is a great topic and a solid article. The best part of this article is the history! It is so important to let readers know that this organization came from somewhere, and you went above and beyond to thoroughly lay out its roots and progressions.
 * 2) All suggested changes are addressed in the above bullet points.
 * 3) I think the best way to improve this article would be to treat it as less of bullet point list of facts and more of an informative article for interested and otherwise uneducated readers on this organization.
 * 4) I think the thing I noticed most that could be applied to my own article would be bias/tone. The organization I wrote about is centered around events and experiences so the way we wrote about them could seem to be written in an over positive light. You guys do a great job of not indulging in how helpful, impactful, and positive this non profit is by sticking to the facts and numbers which makes this article very strong.

~Ariana Coletta

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)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * 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?

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?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 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?

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?

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?

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?