User:Charieceb/White-collar crime/Jakes22 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? (Charieceb)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Charieceb/White-collar crime

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, only re-wording of certain sentences and slight text-omission has been found, alongside a few added citations.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The majority of the lead has remained the same, and is good.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead is satisfactory as it provides a concise breakdown of white-collar crime and also has a contents box highlighting the various subsections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, however it appears that the lead pertains to the original Wikipedia article and not any editorial change by the user.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Content added consists of citation and slight grammatical changes and slight omissions. All remain relevant to the topic, however I'm unsure if it was necessary to remove the last sentence of the first paragraph.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? All revisions are neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, all revisions and citations are neutral

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Content hasn't been added beyond slight revisions, omissions and citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * 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? No new content added beyond rewording, omission and citations. Article remains well-written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammatical or spelling errors found.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There are no substantially new additions to this article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? 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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Article hasn't undergone enough revision to determine.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? grammatical fixes.
 * How can the content added be improved? More new content should be included

Overall evaluation
The article has not undergone much change from the original. I'm personally not sure why the last sentence regarding lawyers specializing in white-collar crime was removed. I felt that the article has remained the same by and large.