User:Hanai92/Care work/Lavorbach Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (Hanai92)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: N/A (General Article)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No/ n/a
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence is concise and describes the topic of "Care Work".
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the lead does not provide brief descriptions of the article's major sections. It does mention some information that is further provided in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the lead describes the nature of care work and the occupations that it includes. This could perhaps be expanded upon and used to create a separate section.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very detailed, and could be condensed in order to create a separate section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? n/a
 * Is the content added up-to-date? n/a
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * N/A for added content
 * Particularly in the "Importance" section, the tone of the author is argumentative and does not base itself entirely on factual information (e.g. "It has been suggested that individuals who don’t take care of others—especially the next generation—will not be capable of reproducing themselves." This should be improved upon and edited to create a more credible sounding article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are a few aspects of the article in which claims appear heavily biased or argumentative.
 * 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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * N/A  However, not all information appears to be backed up by a reliable secondary source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, there is a wide range of literature that is cited, both academic and secondary sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * While there are many current sources, perhaps new information that is updated could be used to replace sources from previous decades.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Overall, it is, but the tone and length of sentences sometimes makes the work harder to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no easily visible spelling or grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is well-organized, however some topics and sub-topics could be expanded upon or broken down to further enhance understanding. For example, the "Care Penalty'" and "Explanations..." major sections are very long, and could be broken down to simplify reading.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, but there are images, but there could be more images to effectively enhance understanding.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

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?
 * N/A
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * N/A
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * N/A