User:JustinChiu1/Tract housing/Cearly2 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? JustinChiu1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:JustinChiu1/Tract housing

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, it has not. The Lead of the article as it currently stands is very short and could use more information, such as when it was invented, a little bit of its history, and financing information, all things you plan to add to the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, I think the introductory sentence of the Lead is pretty solid, except I would add a little more about its origins.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it only describes what tract housing is and that it was modeled on the Levittown concept. The Lead should also briefly talk about the history of tract housing and tract housing financing, if you plan to include those things in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the information in the Lead is in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Too concise, right now. It is only two sentences, and it feels a bit lacking right now. There should be a balance between too little information and too much detail that should just stay in the rest of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, very much so! I think it adds a good amount of detail to the article that was not previously included.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Not relevant to this topic, but yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I feel like something that might be missing, if you are looking for content to add, is the impacts of tract housing. I haven't researched the topic so I don't know, but if historians write about it, maybe try to include the impacts of tract housing, for example in reference to the racial divide you mention.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * You mentioned the racial divide in your History section but I feel like it could use more attention or specific details about HOW these neighborhoods were racially built and WHY that would determine crime rates and education quality.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The information is neutral, but at times the style in which you wrote comes off like an academic writing assignment and somewhat argumentative (as I mention a few lines below). " Once again showing," "we see" or "this is one example of how..." are phrases that signal that you are trying to convince the audience of something, so I would try to avoid these.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, but see above. Your claims are not biased, but the style does not seem right for a Wikipedia article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The quote from Cohen that you use in your Finance section is talking just about Long Island and not the United States as a whole, so I feel like readers would be left wondering about what types of workers were living in this housing in the rest of the country.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * As I mentioned above, it does at times read more like an academic paper trying to argue a point than a neutral Wikipedia source, so this might get flagged by editors.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, no new content is uncited. You have 5 sources, which meets the 5-7 requirement.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Sources come from a variety of sources, including a play, which I found interesting. This is not necessarily a reputable source on its own, so I would be careful of that. Maybe review what our Wikipedia trainings suggest to use for reputable sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, they date from 1987 to 2007. I don't think that really matters in this case, though, as you are writing about events that took place in the 1950s and not something that requires updated information.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Unsure, but I do know that one of the sources is written by a woman, Lizabeth Cohen.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * No links included in the references.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * There are some run-on sentences and fragments that read weirdly, e.g. "These families many were in the military" and "When a growing demand for affordable housing was on the rise, and families wanted out of the city life and wanted a slower paced lifestyle that was more family friendly."
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes, as I mentioned, there a lot of run-on sentences and sentence fragments throughout the new material.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, I think what you've written is well-organized into sections that make sentence for what you've added.

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?
 * 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?
 * yes! The history section expands on the little information included in the original article, and the detail in the Finance section is helpful to understanding how and why tract housing was constructed.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It adds a lot of substance to the existing article and brings up a lot of important ideas related to tract housing (though I think that they could be expanded on).
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Be as clear and explanatory as possible, remembering that the average Wikipedia reader has very little prior knowledge with the material. Presume that they know nothing, and clearly and neutrally explain any topic or idea you introduce. Also, there are some topics you introduce, such as racial divides, that could really use some expansion and more specific detail. Additionally, be cautious of the tone of your writing and try to steer away from an academic, argumentative style of writing because it may seem like you are trying to lead an audience to a certain conclusion. There are some grammatical errors that I mentioned earlier that can make it hard to read at times as well, so for clarity of your writing I would try to revise those.

Overall evaluation
Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources?

Yes, you've got 5 sources from different authors. I'm not 100 percent sure how accurate the information from a play is, though. I don't think it would typically be considered reliable.

Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list?

Yes, you're using Cohen's book to discuss gender roles with tract housing.

Does the topic link in some way to our course material?

Tract housing directly relates to suburbia as a part of the Consumers' Republic, so yes.

Does your peer add historical context to their article?

Definitely. Your History section dives into the context really well when you describe how WWII influenced the growth of tract housing. Though I think you could mention more context of consumer culture at the time.

'''Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further?'''

What you have is really good, the only thing I can think to add would maybe the impacts of tract housing. Did it segregate areas? Did it exacerbate income inequality? etc.