User:Chiqueno/CCAP Rhode Island/Regoc14 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? Chiqueno (provide username)
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Mostly
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Lead evaluation
The "lead" section is neatly concise and describes the article's main topic. The lead mostly includes a brief description of the article's major sections and specifically includes information about the program's funding and recipients. Perhaps, the lead could include more information about the article's other sections (eligibility and child care providers). However, this suggestion may not be necessary. The "lead" does include information that is not present in the article: it describes how the program relies on funding and guidelines from the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Perhaps, briefly discussing the "Child Care and Development Block Grant" in the "fundraising" section would strengthen the article.

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

Content evaluation
The article's content is both relevant and up-to-date. All of the article's information is drawn from sources that were written/published within the last ten years. There does seem to include some information missing in most of the sections. For instance, the article could include more information about each "provider" and their roles to the program.The article could also further describe the Child Care and Development Block Grant", as indicated in the "lead". The article, although well written, interesting and informative could also use some additional information in each section (besides the eligibility section and financing section).

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 over-represented, 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
The tone is consistently neutral throughout the article. However, the sentence that states "there are extreme wait times to get a child care provider, sometimes up to 9 months" ("Expansion" section) is written in a way that may be considered persuasive. In addition, the source that this sentence/section draws from (Borg, Linda) also seems to make no mention of "CCAP" in the article. As a result, it seems as though the author is using separate information from that source to form an argument about the wait time for children to get care from a provider. In addition, the first sentence of this section needs a citation at the end.

The sentence in the "Eligibility" section that states: "there are different thresholds for income and household size that determine how much assistance you are eligible for, seen here," sounds like it is written in the 2nd person. I would suggest that the author instead replaces the word "you" with "a person". In addition, the "seen here" may be omitted and instead replaced with a citation that links to the source.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * 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? Mostly.

Sources and references evaluation
The author does a great job of using a variety of sources (both primary and secondary) on a topic that is very specific and difficult to find information on. The sources include primary sources from the Rhode Island government's website, a survey on child-care rates in Rhode Island, a senior honors project by a URI college graduate (Andrew Boardman), and an article from the Providence Journal.

I'd advise the author to draw more information from these sources and expand the contents of the sections in their Wikipedia page. I noticed one small formatting error in the references section: the web URL to Andrew Boardman's project is duplicated. The link currently reads: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog/691https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog/691, as opposed to https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog/691

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Organization evaluation
The content is concise and clear. My only suggestion would be to explain or clarify what some of the numbers provided in the "Child Care Providers", "Financing", and "Recipients" sections mean. The only spelling error I identified occurs in the first sentence of the article's "Child Care Providers" section. Here, "Licence enters" should be changed to "licence centers". The content is well-organized and is broken down into sections that seem to reflect the program's important information.

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?

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? Yes.
 * 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 article includes several secondary sources about the topic. I believe that the article includes all the available literature about the topic. However, it may be a good idea for the author to search for more information about the topic using URI's online library or through the Providence Journal archives if they wish to include more information. The article stylistically looks like an authentic Wikipedia article. It includes a lead section, a table of contents, and concise one-word headings for each section. The author could consider providing hyperlinks to some of the concepts that they include in their article. Specifically, the author could provide a hyperlink to the Wikipedia page on subsidies. This would help both the article become more discoverable and help the reader have immediate access to a concept they may be unfamiliar with.

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
The author is off to a very strong start! The article's format and styles appears very similar to most published Wikipedia articles. The article also uses a wide variety of up-to-date primary and secondary sources that support the article's content. I believe that the author is a few edits away from getting their article published!

Although I have already discussed some of the improvements that I believe could strengthen the article, one suggestion I would make is to consider revising the title of the article from "Rhode Island CCAP" to "Rhode Island Childhood Care Assistance Program (CCAP)" (or some variation of that). In my opinion, it is important to specifically state what the acronym "CCAP" stands for. This not only makes the article appear more professional but also helps the reader better understand the meaning of the topic. My biggest suggestion would be to expand each of the article's sections and try to explain how some of the statistical information provided in each section relates to the topic. Also, the author should be careful to draw information from a source that doesn't include any specific mention about the topic (source 6: Linda Borg's Projo article). This could often lead to information that is either inaccurate or persuasive.