User:Ben.simon234/Fight for $15/Rajiv.chainani 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? Ben.simon234
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Fight for $15

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it is detailed with facts on the article and talks about the topic from different states and demographics.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes introductory sentence is a definition on the topic in a clear and obvious manner.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does mention major sections but it does not include anything about global disputes. However, I do think the article is centered more on the minimum wage in the US so maybe the section needs altering over making changes to the lead section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead section included everything in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I would say it strikes a good balance. It included quantitative facts and provided an overall outlook for the rest of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, I would say so it includes minimum wages from different sectors that is relevant to the topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Most content is but a lot of the links are from 2014 where laws were different compared to present day.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do think the global section is a minor topic that does not to be so detailed as it is a deterrence to the main points of raising minimum wage in the US.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes not alot of opinions. Statements backed with facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? It is presented more on the negatives of the minimum wage gap and less on the effects of raising the minimum wage on businesses and their ability to pay people their wages.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I do believe view points are overrepresented and their could be a section on raising minimum wages on key macroeconomic factors.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, i think it is more informative than persuasive.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, mostly all points have a done a good job on being correctly cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I do believe they do with sources ranging from different states' newspapers on their own states efforts to raise minimum wage
 * Are the sources current? Yes current with lots of sources from this century.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes but some definitions like the "Grand Bargain" could be defined to add context.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No largely grammatically and spelling is correct.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, they are with subsections helping to bring a balanced argument and tone.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? I do think they do especially the heat map of the US and wage table.
 * Are images well-captioned? the consolidated minimum wage table needs captioning others are fine.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes love the Mcdonalds imagery really adds character to the article

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 over 80 sources, with additional reading.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Very extensive and informative from reliable secondary sources
 * 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? Adds a note from a professor that I have not seen on previous Wikipedia articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, it does

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Very informative and well balanced. Interesting to read with the current economic conditions at hand.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The balanced point of view and points are backed with data and references. Images add to the overall discussion of the article
 * How can the content added be improved? I would make changes to the global section of the piece could be toned down.