User:Jensyn23/White-collar crime/Masan brown Peer Review

Peer review by Masan Brown and Sadie Thompson
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)
 * We are reviewing Jensyn23 White-Collar Crime
 * 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 they added a lot more detail.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it describes white collar crime in more detail than the original article did.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * they chose to just talk about white collar crime while the original article introduces relationships to different types of crime. so yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead is very repetitive to the actual article in the information that is put in it.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overly detailed

==== Lead evaluation: overall good but could remove some information and put those details in the actual article. Very repetitive to the article itself. The lead has the exact same paragraphs as what was added in the content, we aren't sure if this was just done so it was seen what they added or they meant to add this to both the lead and the content, if it is the latter then I would take it out of the lead. ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes its relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes added something from 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The JP Morgan content is to broad of an example to put under demographics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes it is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No claims that seem heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No there are not.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No it does not.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Their source seems to be good.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes they do.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yss all the dates are recent
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links we clicked on worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes very easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * It does not look like there are 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?
 * yes, there are clear sections for each part.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No there are no images, but a table that was in the article already.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * the table has a clear caption for what it represents.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are no images to adhere to the copyrights.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There are no images to be visually laid out.

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?
 * It added more information to greater the impact of the overall article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It is up to date and is accurate for the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * By not being as repetitive and trying to relate to the subject a little more.