User:Lfreeman333/Incarceration in the United States/Riyaaarul Peer Review

General info
(Lfreeman333)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Lfreeman333/Incarceration in the United States
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Incarceration in the United States

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)


 * Hi Leah! Here's my peer review for you,
 * Lead
 * There were no edits were made to the lead so I cannot comment on this section.
 * Content
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, you added important discussions on the Pell Grant ban and Prison Education Programs (PEP) explaining the crucial role of education in reducing recidivism and facilitating successful reintegration of incarcerated individuals into society. This section provides striking examples of the main claims made in the Prison education section regarding the importance of Prison education by delving into the specifics of topics. As for your history edit, I am not entirely sure how the last sentence you added fits into the section as it seems a bit disconnected, perhaps make it into a separate paragraph or subsection.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The majority of the sources where the information has been cited from are from publications within the last 10 years, which is highly suitable and appropriate for this paper.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't think that any of the edits don't belong as they seem to be very suited within the sections that they are added to. However, I would suggest adding more information on Superintendent Brockway's platforms that are introduced in the earlier part of the History section because this idea seems to be introduced but not explored within the edited article, making it seem as if it shouldn't be there.
 * Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, I believe that the added content has a neutral tone.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: I would not say that any viewpoints are overrepresented, it seems more as if the viewpoints of the underrepresented races were instead being presented in an unbiased way.
 * Sources and References
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes all the sources are cited and presented within the bibliography.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? All of the information presented in the edits was directly using the arguments/ideas made within the cited sources and did not change their original intentions.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Sources included journals regarding federal financial aid allotted to system-impacted students as well as another journal regarding legalized exploitation of African Americans and Natives: both of which are incredibly reliable and valuable for the edits that were made. I would say that they both capture the essence of the edits within their articles.
 * Are the sources current? Yes all the sources, except one regarding Brockway's work from a primary source dated in 1982, were from the past 8 years which is a very current pool of sources for edits.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Several authors from the cited sources are African American such as Beth Rose, presenting diversity and historically marginalized authors within the cited sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all of the links in the bibliography work.
 * Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - Yes the content was well written and read quite smoothly.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No there are not any errors in spelling or grammar.


 * Is the content added well-organized - As mentioned above I think that the part on Brockway's platforms could use its own subsection and it would really benefit from being its own section because I don't think that it fits directly in the history section of this paper. Please look at my comments above for further details on this.

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? Overall, think that the added information on racial disparities in prison education and reform is very relevant to this article and overall makes it much stronger and well-rounded.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added, as I mentioned above is definitely that the added information on racial disparities is very relevant to this article and overall makes it much stronger and well-rounded.

-Riya Arul