User:Caveman1989/Community-based program design/TheOrientAlice 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? Caveman1989
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Caveman1989/communitybased

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead doesn't reflect much of the new added content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? the lead includes a sentence that introduces about the topic
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no the lead doesn't do that
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? the new content includes information on the case of Paul Farmer helped combating HIV in Haiti and other healthcare developments in Peru and Rwanda in 1998. The content is not very up-to-date but the example is relevant to the topic and can be used as demonstration for the effectiveness of community-based program.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no everything is relevant to the topic
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

==== Content evaluation : half of the content consists of general information of community-based program design, and other half consist of 1 example of Paul Farmer and his healthcare development in 1998. The content does provide some new information on the topic. ====

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes it is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no, all information is neutral and informative.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The example given is too detailed and a little overrepresented since it makes up more than half of the added information
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?no it's not, the tone is neutral and not persuasive.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? both of the references are from reliable sources (articles on American Journal of Community Psychology and UCSF)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Article on UCSF website was from 2012 and the other article was from 2009)
 * 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? yes they work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes it was written carefully
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I couldn't find any
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes it is. 2 paragraphs are organized in order from more general information to describe a specific example of community-based program.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media: No


 * 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? Yes the content improves the overall quality of the article
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added has a detailed example of a specific case of community-based program and that program was very effective so the example is strong
 * How can the content added be improved? more information on the program design should be added.