User:Chiqueno/CCAP Rhode Island/Tcharwood73 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It could highlight the sections more
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and well written

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all sources are from no more than a few years ago
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The included content is all relevant.  If you found some source about the effect of this program on children or their families, that could be interesting.  That info might not be available

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 element of this seems like a persuasive writing piece.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? some of the sources are from periodicals, which isn't overly concerning.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? As far as I can tell
 * Are the sources current? sources are fairly new, 5 years old or less
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links i accessed worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is written plainly, which makes it readable and the message is clear
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Under the "Child Care Providers" section, "Licensed enters" is written where I believe "centers" was intended.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

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? I don't know. Considering this is for a small state, this may be the sum total of available data, but it may not.
 * 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? This article basically follows conventions. There is one link to a PDF that seems out of place, under "eligibility", there is a hyperlink that says "here".  I've never seen another article that frames their links like that.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, it links to numerous social welfare programs, which is in keeping with the theme of the article

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is new, but the content is of good quality.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is informative of many of the technicals of CCAP in Rhode Island. The writing is neutral and free from flourishes or overly descriptive language.
 * How can the content added be improved? If there were data on the effect of this welfare program on outcomes for families, it might allow a reader to make more conclusions on the usefulness of the program.