User:Jensyn23/White-collar crime/Amstubby1 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

 * Jensyn23
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jensyn23/White-collar crime

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
I really like how you have edited the lead to include more information. The new content added was more specific than the information given prior to the edits. The introductory sentence allows the reader to truly understand what the article is about, as it gives a direct definition of the topic. However, I cannot really pinpoint where the description about the articles major sections is located. If you did not add this, you should, and if you did, possibly make it a little bit more clear to the reader. The lead is to the point and enough for the reader to make sense of the topic, but not too much that the reader gets bored. Great job!

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Content evaluation
The content added is extremely relevant to the topic. The examples you added work very well with the topic and help the reader fully understand what this term means, and gives them the ability to apply it. The content is all up to date, and works very well with the topic. All that I would say is to add a little more to more of the sections in the original Wikipedia page.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is very neutral and not biased in any way. The information you added is direct facts rather than opinions, which is great! There are not any personal viewpoints written that I can see, making the article very neutral. I think you did a great job of informing the reader about what is going on with this topic, without adding any personal ideas in. This makes your article a lot more reliable! Great job!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I did notice you already added the citations into your sandbox, and all of them look great! The sources seem very reliable and great additions to your article. The sources reflect exactly what you need for this topic, and they are all very current. Your links work great! Keep up the good work!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
I really like the organization of ideas within paragraphs, however I can not really tell where the information added is supposed to go in the main, large article. Your language is very professional and well-written. Very easy to read. I do not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. I think you should add the section names so it is more clear to the reader where they should look for the information they need.

Images and Media
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?

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?
 * 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?

New Article Evaluation
n/a

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
You have 100% improved the overall quality of the article. You made it more professional, and you added more information to make the article an easy read and very informative. Your content added works very well with the article, it adds more detail of the topic and creates a fuller response. You also have very well written language! For improvements, I would just say to create sections to your article, and make more additions to different sections in the article. Overall, this is an awesome start!