User:JustinChiu1/Tract housing/Marlee Gaddy Peer Review

Peer review Marlee Gaddy 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? (provide username) - Justin Chiu1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Tract housing

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? : From the last time I had reviewed, I see more information added to the Sandbox.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? : The lead begins with the concept and gives a clear and short definition on the concept.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? : The introduction does a good job of encompassing the topics to be discussed later in the article
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? : Yes, the beginning is more elaborative and in depth into the concept of "Tract Housing" and offers a better sense of historical evidence to encompass all information on the concept.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The original article is very short, non descriptive, and touches on the basics of the topic leaving the reader with many leftover questions. The sandbox does offer more information on the introduction of "Tract Housing" and where it comes from, including dates, to give the reader some answers to a broad and generic article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? : Yes, I find the content that was added to be more elaborative on the topic as well as giving background information outside of what is already offered.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? : For the most part yes, the oldest source is actually from the year 1987 and the most recent is from relatively a closer time frame of 2007.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? : There is content missing as touches on post WW2 shift in housing. I feel topics such as the GI Bill should be mentioned and then elaborated on as it played a critical role in the housing development of the United States. I also think that yes, the sandbox introduces the issues with housing and the racial divides but I think that since it significantly affected the concept it should be elaborated on more. I think that more information of the causation from the shift in population from the south and many of the people moving being African American people, was a factor in the "white flight" as many white people fled to suburbs and left the crowded cities. I also think that the last paragraph in the sandbox should contain information on the way these homes were constructed to appeal and segment people based on race, and class. For example, the sandbox mentions Liz Cohens book and I think they can also pull how homes were built with an open concept to appeal to a certain social group within these concepts.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? : ^

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? : Yes, with the information provided it lays out vague historical information but at the same time without much elaboration there is not much of a chance for bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? : ^ Not that I see.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? : Not so much viewpoints as there is few informative historical implications.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? : No, it works to further elaborate and give more conetnt on an article with little information.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? : Everything mentioned on a historical event is cited that Justin added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? : Yes, but there is little citations being added therefore it is still all listed and cited.
 * Are the sources current? : Yes, I find them to be within the early 2000s.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? : Yes, the source that is from Oxford is really creditable and Justin makes good use of utilizing a source that is well known, and heavily reliable.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? : I don't get taken to any links but when I copy and paste I am able to search and locate.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? : Yes, I do find that there is more than can be added, concepts to be introduced, but from what I can see Justin did add some more elaborative information on the historical events in the original article and does a good job rewriting the concepts in a way that gives a clearer understanding.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? : No, I don't see any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? : It is labeled to where I can see what he is adding and or fixing, but there is not a whole lot to the sense of where is is to be eventually located or mixed with.

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, but the original article has hardly anything to it in the first place. Therefore, I feel there is much room for opportunity to further the article with elaboration, more historical evidence, and citations.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? : I would say again the room for opportunity to really expand on the concept.
 * How can the content added be improved? : Drawing back to my comment from the question under "Content" I give a few examples of good places to start on the concept and tie in with the course even more.

Overall evaluation
I think that Justin is taking a really good start here, and has a good amount of room to continue to expand this articles information and give a better understanding to the reader so they can further grasp the concept of "Tract Housing".