User:Kiarra120/Prison overcrowding/EmeraldJ 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? Kiarra120
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kiarra120/Prison overcrowding

Lead
Guiding questions:

There was no lead. The draft opens up straight into the article.


 * 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?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes most of the sources used are from within the last decade.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No all content seems to relate to the topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * It seems so
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Relatively so
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * None of the sources are hyperlinked. Need to find them copy and paste style.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The information seems on point but I feel that the syntax structure is odd. Some sentences feel oddly worded or stopped too short.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Maybe, hard to know. Nothing seems to stick out.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No sections, written like a paper.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * None included
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not really

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?
 * I think so
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * There are 5 sources, which i feel is a fair amount to have. Yes, it seems to represent current lit. on the topic.
 * 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?
 * No
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * No

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I'm not sure where it'll be added so it's hard to know but the info is interesting.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Info is concise and to the point.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Content needs to be revised and edited to resemble a wiki post.

Overall evaluation
The content is on-point and well put, but it needs to be structured more like a wiki article and needs images.