User:Cambriaharrington/Autism service dog/M.2.woolley 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

 * Cambriaharrington
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Autism service dog

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?

Lead evaluation
While the introductory sentence does describe the topic, it is very long and hard to follow. I recommend putting this tinto two different sentences. I also recommend adding information that gives an overview of the article sections.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
In your introduction I would give a clear statement of what autism is. You may want to talk about overstimulation and other aspects of autism that a guide dog may be helpful with. The information on ADA is very interesting, however, this section needs to be written better. This part is very abrupt and it is unclear why it matters if service dogs are required to wear vests or about the size of the service dogs. The part where you reference organizations is a good idea, but needs to have a purpose. How does 4Paws for Ability actually help autistic individuals? Is it hard to get a guide dog without help from these organizations?

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is very neutral and no claims appear to be biased. You might want to add why specifically guide dogs are helpful or not though.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
It seems that you have many sources cited, many of them being fairly reliable. However, you may want to look through your citations to make sure everything is accurate again. I clicked on this link: http://servicedogcentral.org/content/node/214 and it did not 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?

Organization evaluation
This content is not easy to read. The paragraphs need to be re-organized in a way that each section connects and builds off of each other.

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?

Images and media evaluation
The image and caption is really great! I do wonder what a "deep pressure task" is and how it might be helpful though. I recommend adding something about that in your 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?
 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article provides a lot of information how one might get a service dog and resources that would assist people with this. However, there needs to be more information on the intersection of guide dogs and autism. The section on adults and service dogs was also very informative! I do not know if there needs to be two sections for adult v. child though. The information after these two paragraphs needs to be more related to the above information (especially the information on ADA). If you talk about ADA, make sure you explain what it does and maybe when it was created. Overall, the article is coming along and just needs some more work to ensure everything is cohesive.