User:HunterKaimi/Cell dog/Lizzethmancilla 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)
 * HunterKaimi
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:HunterKaimi/Cell dog

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead reflects the new content that is going to be covered. For example, it mentions how/why cell dogs were created and information about the founder covered later.
 * However, with the new way it is formatted, it is missing the "lead paragraph" that usually goes at the top.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, I think it effectively covers what the article is about - it explains that the purpose of cell dogs are mutual between the inmate and dog.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, there is no clear description that indicates the topics training, service dogs, and life after incarceration are going to be covered later.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, everything in the lead is relevant to the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise, I think it does a good job of explaining the basic overview of what the topic is about.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all the content added is relevant. It is thorough and provides insight to different aspects of cell dogs.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the information provided comes from sources written in the past five years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, I don't think there is any information that doesn't belong. There are sections underneath the main "Cell dogs" paragraphs that don't have any information yet, so I think that content is missing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, I think all the content is neutral. It is all written in a very informative tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, none of the information is biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, I think the article does a great job of describing the viewpoint in arguing pros for the inmates and pros for the dogs.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, I find it very neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * One of the sites is a .edu site, but the other two aren't secondary sources. However, I think you should cite your sources more throughout the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they are thorough and provide information on many different aspects of cell dogs such as success stories and mental health benefits.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, they are all from the past five years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, all the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is all well-written and easy to follow along with.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * A few, but I'm planning on copy-editing them.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, however I think some of the information written can be broken down into smaller sections such as including a "Benefits of Cell Dogs" section.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are currently no pictures in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A - there are none
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A - there are no pictures
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * All the information added really improved the article. It gives a lot more in-depth explanation of how cell dogs are used for prisoners. It is a lot more complete and definitely fills in gaps in the original article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I think it is all very well-written, neutral, and easy to follow along. I think the new sections added in make it a lot easier to see what the article is about/will be about (once all sections are filled in).
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think it would be helpful to add in pictures. Maybe one of Sister Pauline Quinn if there's one or just some of cell dogs in general. Also, as I mentioned earlier, I found several parts in your article that I think are supposed to be cited. Also, adding in information for the other blank sections if you meant to add that in.