User:Emga111/Indian Health Service/1Mehayla 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? Emga111
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Emga111/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No they haven't added anything to the article yet, could add an introduction sentence to the second paragraph of the intro about broad benefits of self determination.
 * 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?
 * All except budgets and current issues
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise and gives overview.

Lead evaluation
This is a strong lead that could us a small additions. It is concise and describes what the program is, introduces what it does, and its scope. Like I said above the lead could mention budgets, current issues, and self determinism that Emily will be adding.

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
The topic you will be adding is relevant to the topic, sources are up to date (oldest being only 2010). Good application of research. The paragraph that starts the legislation section should be rewritten. I believe that is why it is in the sandbox? Also I feel like the last two sentences of Important Self Determination Legislation is an explanation of the ISDEAA rather than stating its importance. So, either rename that section or but that information else where.

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

Tone and balance evaluation
They are neutral as they overview the multitude of opinions and the debates around them. The only concern is too much focus on the two case studies. I think they are great examples, but they take up too much of the conversation.

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
Yes all resources are from reliable sources of information. The sources are up to date as aforementioned the oldest sources that the editor brought in was from 2010. The links I checked worked.

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
I think maybe reorganize the original page by separating services and benefits. Self determinism can thus be described as a service in one section, then the benefits of that service structure in another? Also, since there is already a section titled current issues maybe put the concerns spoken about in Self Determination Success and Concerns, in current issues? For example the whole last paragraph could go under current issues. Lastly, regarding the page structure, should employment be under benefits rather in a separate section?

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
There is no media on this article and I don't think the editor is planning on adding any.

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?

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
I believe that what Emily is adding will add value to the understanding of the impact of this legislation. Thus highlighting it's impact and value, hopefully keeping it in place as well as inspire more legislation like this. Overall, the page content could be reorganized in a better way. The content that will be added can be put more concisely and not as reliant on case studies. There are a few things I question the relevancy of.