User:Jacook15/Interfaith Works (Syracuse)/Lilabroden3 Peer Review

General info
Jacook15
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Interfaith Works (Syracuse)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Interfaith Works (Syracuse)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

No, the lead is the exact same as the lead in the original article. No new content is added.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes it does


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No it does not


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No it does not, everything in the lead is talked about in the following sections


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is very concise and to the point, not overly detailed at all

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, very! The article talks about the Interfaith Works programs, history, organizational diversity, the mission statement, what the program is like today, and the media coverage.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes it is. All of the sources range from 2021 - 2024


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

No, I don’t think so! All of the content is relevant, and I don’t see anything that is missing or does not belong


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes it does. The topic itself addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations. It also has a section (while small) on organizational diversity.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes, the content added is neutral and straight forward.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Nope! The content is neutral as the article just talks about the Interfaiths Work organization and what it is all about, there are no biases present


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No, I think everything is very equal, each section is fairly equal


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

No, as I said before the content is very neutral and just straightforward and to the point.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yup, the new content is all cited and backed up by a reliable secondary source


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Yes it does!


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes they are, and there is a large variety of sources to prove this


 * Are the sources current?

Yes they are, the latest source used is from 2021


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes they do, but more could always be added


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Yes I believe there are. I think the youtube video source could be replaced with a peer-reviewed article instead, for example. Maybe the same with the Daily Orange article.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes they do work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, all the content is concise, clear, and easy to read.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No it does not


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, there are 5 main sections that reflect the major points of the topic and they are each well-organized

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes the article includes one image, the logo of Interfaith works, which is helpful to understanding the topic further


 * Are images well-captioned?

Yes it is, it has a description under it


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes it does


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

The image is just on the side of the article, but I don’t see anything wrong with it

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes I think so! However I think more new content could be added


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

The main strength is that the content added provides a deeper understanding of what Interfaith Works is all about


 * How can the content added be improved?

I just think there should be more content added. It is a little hard to tell what is new and what was already there