User:Lsearcy44/User:Cheddar 99/sandbox/Lsearcy44 Peer Review

Peer review By Lena Searcy
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? Group 4, Cheddar 99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cheddar_99/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead could use more info, they just say what the org is and mention something about a facility which may go better in the recreational section.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it does. But it also feels a little short, a bit more info could be given about the program upfront, like about who created this non-profit, or briefly explaining what they do to help people. The info about the new facility seems unnecessary as well.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, just explains what the organization does, they could summarize the article better with the lead, so that a person could get the general idea quickly without reading into too much detail.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Background info, who is in charge of this org, the type of programs they have, and notable ways they have helped exploited people.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise and to the point. It's a little too short.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, most of it is. In the History section, the last three paragraphs feel like they belong under accomplishments rather than history.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The info is accurate and up to date. The sources are from unbiased sources, most of which are news, and are from the last 5-6 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There are some sentences that can be changed around, mostly in the history section. I also think the documentary may be worthy of its own section with further research about how the org contributed and how it effected their image.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, it does. It discusses exploited people of various races, although the article does not bring up race as a factor.

==== Content evaluation Make sure to watch wording mistakes, some sentences, especially in the first paragraph under History sound awkward. In the History section, try to make the story flow better, for example, you talk about an interview and mention they talk about how they came up with the idea. You could say they came up with the idea because of their experiences, as stated in this interview. Same with the mission section, in the first paragraph, the second sentence doesn't make sense. Try saying something like due to complex, or unfortunate, or whatever circumstances, these women... The second half of the third sentence his redundant. ====

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Most of it is, however, there are some places that are not. For example, the criticism section does not make much sense, it sounds like an ad for the org, and there is no criticism on the org's behalf. The only criticism is in the last sentence, and it seems like it's against the stigma of sex and sex work, which is irrelevant.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, but there is a lot of language and a few sentences that seem to be pointing to the fact that the org is great and free of criticism.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The idea that the org. rescues girls is said over and over, the wording seems to be leading the reader to the direction of putting the org up on a pedestal.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Yes, it makes the org seem like it is free of faults, and is always effective.

Tone and balance evaluation
'''The residential center program's last sentence has biased language, like "must find the girls a home" instead of aims to, or places. "So they can have their own beds and spaces" can be reworded to sound less biased as well. The harmful reduction approach can be reworded, the second half of the first sentence is confusing, and the last sentence can be reworded to explain how the founders believe this approach makes girls feel more empowered. Just look over the article and remove wording that sounds like it favors the org too much.'''

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? They are all within the last 5-6 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Most of the sources are from various local news websites, and some are from academic journals, and official websites. I don't think the official website, the Sundance source, is biased, since Sundance relies on the film being well reviewed by critics rather than making the org look good.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I checked every link, they all work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Other than some confusing phrasing, most of the content is easy to read. I can tell what the org does easily, there are not hard to understand big words either.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No spelling mistakes, but some awkward phrasing.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the subheadings match the flow of the content. However, I would add a heading or subheading about the documentary and make accomplishments its own section. My Life, My Choice could use more work as well, it feels incomplete and could use more detail and info. From what you have, it sounds like that's what the org does in general, I don't really understand how it's a program by itself.

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? In terms of the info, yes, the article feels complete. I don't think there is anymore that you need to add, other than maybe some extra info regarding the documentary and the My Life, My Choice program.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I like that the language is simple, the headings and organization make sense and the references are good. When you explain what something is, I feel like it is easy to understand, there are no big, uncommon words.
 * How can the content added be improved? You could rearrange some of the info you already have just to make the article flow better. You could also work on some of the adjectives you use to describe programs to seem less biased, and make sure to check the wording of some sentences that sounded awkward. I would either get rid of the criticism section or add some controversies, because it seems unnecessary.

==== Overall evaluation: There are some things to add, and rework, but overall, this is a good article. The neutral tone needs work, especially in the last section, however, I know it can be hard to not to praise an organization that does such a good thing for the world. Just try to focus on what language you use, and how you are wording your sentences. This was a good article overall, just a little more info can be given in certain places, and things can be moved around. ====