User:Chiqueno/CCAP Rhode Island/MrrrAndersonnn 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)
 * Chiqueno
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Chiqueno/CCAP Rhode Island

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?
 * Describes article, but choppy and not concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * In the sense that it compares CCAP to other assistance programs, yes (though I would not consider this an issue).
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Lead is concise, but sentence structure could be improved. Sentences are choppy, and seem to run on with many commas. Consider revising.

Lead evaluation
7/10

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * It would appear so
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Possibly, overall content seems to be a bit short, and 6 total sources could be increased to more.

Content evaluation
8/10

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
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Tone and balance evaluation
9/10

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No
 * 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

Sources and references evaluation
7/10

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Not all of it
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes, lots of sentences with 2,3+ commas.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
6/10

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * NA

Images and media evaluation
NA

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
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Minimum required sources, Id shoot for at least 10
 * 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, but lacks detail and depth
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes

New Article Evaluation
7/10

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Seems short, all of it fit on my screen, and it's a 13' laptop.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Concise, neutral, looks accurate, and develops a reasonable understanding of the material.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I'd expand upon every category except eligibility. One section was less than two lines. Seems like if an entire section cannot be explained in more than 2 sentences, it is not worth including as a section.

Overall evaluation
7/10