User:Jensyn23/White-collar crime/Lynnet22 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? 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introductory sentence clearly states the topic, white-collar crime, and a description of what it is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead briefly goes over what will be featured in the article's major sections. It is a little confusing and doesn't give a clear road map for the reader.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The Lead brings up the Bruno Iksil scandal, but it isn't mentioned later in the article. The scandal isn't expanded in later sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is overly detailed. The topics mentioned in the Lead could be expanded and become their own sections.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is up-to-date. For example, they included a recent regulation enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice in October 8, 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is content missing due to the fact that the Lead is the only thing written from the writer.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are not any claims biased toward any particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are not any viewpoints that are over represented or under represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content is not biased in any way and does not try to persuade the reader to think one way over another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the content is backed up by a reliable secondary source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are thorough in the context in which they are used in.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current and are published in 2017 and 2019.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is well-written with easy to understand language, so nothing too over the top and hard for basic readers to understand. Overall, with what the writer has so far, it is concise and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are not 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? The content is well-organized, but there are not any sections in which the writing is broken down into. In the Lead, there are 3 paragraphs with distinct topics. However, there is no heading for the sections that are broken off from the Lead.

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?

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? Yes, the writer has backed up their writing with 3 reliable secondary sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The first source is used more often than the other 2 sources. However, it is evenly spread out throughout the article. Additionally, the sources do 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? The articles doesn't include section headings to separate the different paragraphs. No media and infoboxes are included.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? The article is linked to "crime," "Edwin Sutherland," and "corporate crime".

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The new content really expanded the Lead of the original articles. Instead of the 1 paragraph, it now has 3 paragraphs.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The new content added is up-to-date and includes a better introduction to the topic of white-collar crime.
 * How can the content added be improved? There isn't much that the new content can improve on. However, the structure of the article could be revised to look more like a Wikipedia article.