User:Brendanepton/Police misconduct/EmeraldJ 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? Brendanepton
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Brendanepton/Police misconduct

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Incredibly so.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes and could even be a bit more extended upon, but not necessarily required.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I feel that it is nice and to the point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, that's the only content.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, a lot of the articles cited are from this year
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, I don't believe so.

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, he includes info about all parties involved.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, simply to inform on the topic of how much police misconduct costs monetarily.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The references seem to check out.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, most of them are up to date and all of them come from seemingly reputable sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes
 * 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, I only felt the need to read the information once. Thus, I believe that its easily uptake-able.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yea, I feel that comma's need to be added and some better syntax choice could be used.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I believe so
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I wish the font choice was a bit more aesthetic, but I think that's me being picky.

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, he includes the information gathered from several reputable sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * I believe that he utilizes all the information from each source he includes.
 * 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?
 * Yes, if I didn't know better I would assume it was a genuine wiki article.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, several

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I believe he created his own article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Gets to the point and has very concise information.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Just seems to need a grammar check and then its all good.

Overall evaluation
If I didn't know any better I would assume this was a genuine Wikipedia article. However, in some instances in the article I believe better syntax choice could have been used such as in the first sentence under the largest police misconduct settlements heading.