User:Koof99/Personal finance/Kenzrkaz Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Koof99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Koof99/Personal finance
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Personal finance

Evaluate the drafted changes:
I think this article does a great job of highlighting the important topics of personal finance. Despite my lack of prior knowledge in personal finance, the information appeared to be all relevant, and the writing style was easily understandable. I think that this article benefited a lot from removing the unimportant "History" section and the final “Education and Tools” category. I was impressed by the impact of some minor grammar changes made to the lead, and I believe that the inclusion of important terms like "managing" and "monitoring" significantly enhances the definition of personal finances and its functions.

While there were not many changes that were made to the lead, I do think that by adding some more examples of what is monitored in regard to personal finance (credit scores and retirement funds being big parts of PF), the reader was given a better overview of subtopics that will be discussed further on.

The introduction effectively covers all the personal finance categories discussed, leaving no "extra" information out of the lead.

I believe that the "Areas of Focus" paragraph slightly overemphasizes credit, while the lead mentions insurance, taxes, and stocks, but the rest of the article doesn't go into as much detail. The introductions second paragraph clearly outlines the elements of personal finance, including "various banking products," "insurance products," and the monitoring and management of taxes and pensions, among others. The article primarily follows this structure, but I think delving deeper into some of these other topics could divert attention from the frequent mention of credit.

Putting the “basic” information first and then building off of it later as you go into more specifics is always easier for people to understand with bigger concepts such as personal finance, and I think this is one of those articles where not every section will be able to have the same weight, so even distribution may not be completely achievable. Despite this, the author effectively discusses and covers each subtopic separately.

I don’t believe there are any sections that are unnecessary in this article. They all serve a purpose and add valuable information to the page. The removal of the previously included "History" and "Education and Tools" sections was, in my opinion, a wise decision. Shortening this page has made it much more balanced and focused on the subject.

I believe that the "Need for Personal Finance" section could be interpreted as trying to convince readers to accept a particular point of view. This section provides arguments for the inclusion of personal finance in schools and educational programs, potentially attempting to convince the audience of its significance. Listing the pros and cons of personal finance, supported by statistics and presented in a fact-based manner, could potentially make this section more objective. The statement, "Personal finance in public education is not always required, with just under 30% of high schools in the US in 2024 not having personal finance as a graduation requirement," serves as an effective example of basing the "good" of personal finance on facts. On the other hand, “it is essential to associate the connection between the implementation of financial courses into the education system and the generational shift of personal financial educations” and “this illustrates the importance of learning personal finance from an early stage” are using words that stress importance and try to convince the reader to believe the importance as well.

When discussing credit in the “Areas of Focus” section, there is an almost equal list of the pros and cons of credit cards. This keeps the perspective neutral here and doesn’t sway the reader in either direction to use or keep a credit card for personal finance. As previously discussed, the "Need for Personal Finance" section presents the topic of personal finance in a slightly positive light, but otherwise the article stays neutral!

I was a bit confused when it came to locating the sources that were added to the article. Upon reviewing the bibliography from the author, I identified two sources, "I Will Teach You to Be Rich" and "Million Dollar Habits: Proven Power Practices to Double and Triple Your Income," but I couldn't find their inclusion in the article draft. I am sorry I could not provide more feedback on the usage of these sources in the draft, but I could not locate them anywhere other than the bibliography, where a brief description of their intended purpose was written.

I think that the sources are pretty well distributed throughout the article, but I did notice that two of them seemed like they might be unreliable or have some neutrality concerns. "The Importance of Financial Education" appeared to be biased due to its persuasion-focused approach, and "More US high schools now require personal finance courses" does come from a news report podcast, which may be unreliable. After looking through some of their other stories, they do include many with heavy biases and personal opinions, so it may be a good idea to verify their credibility.

One thing that I noticed in this article that made me think about something I could review on my own was making sure that I used completely neutral language. I find it easier to identify bias in other people's work than in my own, as I naturally express my opinions when learning about a subject, often without thought. Additionally, I believe that reviewing this article has increased my awareness of sections in my own work that may require cutting down on due to their loose connection to my subject.