User:Lfreeman333/Prison-to-college program/Riyaaarul Peer Review

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


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Lfreeman333/Prison-to-college program
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Prison-to-college programs 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
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes the lead was updated by adding a few definitions of what the motives of prison to college programs are as well as a concluding sentence that sets up the rest of the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the last sentences "are historical context, geographical location, program model comparisons, politics and legislation, and inequitable social structures that impact the long-term effectiveness of prison education programs" clearly lay out what is to come in the remaining part of the paper.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead gives good insight into the main ideas that are covered in the article but does not specifically provide a brief section of all of the articles major sections, this is something that can definitely be added by the contributor.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No all the information in the Lead is present within the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and clear, it could use more edits on laying out all the different sections of the article better however.
 * Content
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content that has been added to the paper redefines already mentioned terms such as prison-college pipelines, provides transitory sentences, and also provides more specfic arguments on the issues with certain programs. All of these weave in seamlessly into the existing article.
 * 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 higher education in prison and literature reviews of different pilot approaches: which is 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? These sources don't have as much of a diverse spectrum of authors in terms of race/ethnicity, however it is truly great that most of the authors and contributors of the sources are females.
 * 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 introducing Brockway's platforms could be further expanded upon and it would really benefit from being its own paragraph at least because I don't think that it fits directly in at the moment, it seems a bit choppy and out of place. 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 issues and challenges within higher education in prison 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 program challenges is very relevant to this article and overall makes it much stronger and well-rounded.

-Riya Arul