User:Emilyyao/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement/FNguyen3 Peer Review

Group 13 peer reviews
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? (Emilyyao)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No group 13 did not edit the lead section
 * 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? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Still concise but has more detail

Lead evaluation
Good

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
Good

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

Tone and balance evaluation
Good

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? yes

Sources and references evaluation
Good

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
Good

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? n/a
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

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? 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? yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes

New Article Evaluation
Good

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? very informative & neutral
 * How can the content added be improved? n/a

Overall evaluation
Good

Part 1: All group members should respond to the following prompts, with specific examples:

• Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

• Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

Part 2: Each member of each group should choose one prompt.

• Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…

• Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify…

• Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify…

• Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…

Overall evaluation
Part 1:


 * The group’s edits substantially improved the article as they provided a lot of information on ICE, the politics surrounding it, & it’s history.  I believed the section of Sanctuary cities is significant as it shows public combatants and lack of cooperation against ICE. I believe group 13 accomplished their overall goals of adding a section about Sanctuary Cities, Protests surrounding ICE, ICE health service corp, & how ICE was started & by who.

Part 2:


 * The draft submission reflects a neutral point of view as it shows relevant sources for all information recorded.

~