User:Celinewherritt/Disability rights movement/Jerseryq 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? (provide username)
 * Celinewherritt
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Celinewherritt/sandbox

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
''The Lead's introductory sentence explained that disability rights can be violated but, did not explain or give an overview of what these disability rights are or what they do for a person. It was confusing to understand what disability rights were because the intro only focused them being violated or being a form of discrimination. I think that the explanation of the rights being violated should be kept, as it was still a description to the articles sections. The fourth sentence uses the words, "When having a discussion...it is important to include", seem to indicate a suggestion/conclusion on the topic, by rephrasing the sentence it can become more relevant to the topic and what was discussed. But the lead was concise enough to explain what will be discussed.''

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?

Content evaluation
''The content added is relevant to the topic. In the historical section the first sentence about President Roosevelt could be shortened by providing a link to a different wikipedia article about him and instead focus about him serving as president with a disability; perhaps having the second and third sentence as being the first sentence(s). The first paragraph in the debates/approaches discusses a debate that is ongoing today but it uses information from polling from 1992, it would be useful to additionally discuss debates or to use current sources/data. In the Legal Section it could be stated more clear that the article's quote and Hergenroede contributed to creating laws and policies, I felt that it was uncertain to how they related to the legal section.''

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 being added is neutral, there is a good discussion of the debates, cases and laws without there being a opinion.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
''The sources and references being used can be improved on. The article was not cited like a wikipedia article but more like an essay in MLA format. Also, some sentences were cited but I could not find those sources in the reference page. The sources included did have links that worked and seemed reliable.''

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
''There are a few grammatical and spelling errors that can be fixed easily by rereading. Overall the sections are organized and are easy to read.''

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
n/a

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?

New Article Evaluation
The sources included are reliable sources and the reference page already seems to have exhaustive sources but I am still unsure if there should be more sources that should be included as they seemed to be included throughout the article.

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
''Overall, the article seems to be complete. It has good, thorough sections and is unbiased within those sections. It can just be improved in rephrasing and going through and citing everything correctly with a complete list of the sources being used.''

Hi! Thank you for your insightful feedback. I accounted for your feedback and my changes can be seen here. I tried to improve my notability, sources, and I rearranged a lot of my information to make more sense! ~