User:Hattiegroat/Prisons in California/Sam kwok berkeley 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? (Hattiegroat
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Prisons in California

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, she uses the information already provided while adding in additional information
 * 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?somewhat
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? not really
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise- its a good lead

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? yes, there is some missing information under spending and incarcerated populations. Hattie seems to be adding to this

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes, they are all factual
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? nope
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? there is a lot of missing information within the article
 * 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? 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

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes, for the most part it flows well
 * 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, the sections just need more content

Images and Media n/a
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 n/a
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? The article is getting to being more complete. There is still a lot of missing information but hattie seems to be on the right track
 * What are the strengths of the content added? She is rearranging sections that seem to have bad flow and is also rewriting awkwardly worded statements/sentences.
 * How can the content added be improved? She just needs to add more content/information, but otherwise is doing fine.