User:Chiqueno/CCAP Rhode Island/PaigeCarmichael1 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?
 * 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 to the article is concise and provides a good basic introduction to the article. I do think there could be a little more detail in the lead about the origins of the CCAP program. Maybe a brief history or how and when the program originated.

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
All of the content added seems relevant to the topic and up-to-date. I do not think there is extraneous information, but maybe a few areas where details could be added. I included those notes in the overall review at the end!

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 over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
This article is balanced and maintains a neutral tone throughout most of the piece. There does seem to be room to add an opposing view point in the 'Expansion' section. I think adding in the view point of those who do not support expansion of the program could be valuable for a more nuanced view.

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
All sources are reliable and extremely up-to-date with the oldest source from 2015. All of the links I checked worked and there were links throughout the article to other Wikipedia entries, which is helpful.

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
In general the article was well-organized and easy to read. There were a few sentences that did not flow well when reading. I would take a look at the start of the 'Eligibility' section and maybe slightly re-work the sentences there so it is easier 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
This article meets all of the points above. I would say the only area of improvement on this from would be one or two more sources for the Expansion section (as mentioned above). Other than that this seems like a good article addition to Wikipedia.

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 this is a clear and concise article. I feel like I came away with a general idea of the program and how it functions. I also liked the way you referenced information; there were consistent references throughout and you referenced many other Wikipedia pages, which is helpful. There are a few questions I still have after reading the article that you could think about including in your sections. First, I wonder exactly how the CCAP payments/ subsidies are dispersed. Do parents receive a stipend for care directly, are they able to apply for reimbursement of payments made already? Just the simple logistics about how the program provides funding to parents. Second, I wonder what the average amount of child care funding a family receives. Maybe if that data is available you could make a chart with the averages for a single parent household, four person household, etc. Including average payments would put the program into perspective and give a good idea of how it is affecting family finances. The third and last question I had was mentioned above, but I would love to know how the program came about, when it was implemented, etc. Maybe if there is not enough information for a full history section a small paragraph in the introduction would be good to give some background on the program.