User:Lucaskim7/Civic engagement/Dalexandertom 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? (Lucaskim7)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lucaskim7/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The content added isn't fully reflected in the lead section.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead doesn't have an introductory sentence that concisely describes the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead doesn't have a brief description of the article's sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead does not present information that isn't in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is up-to-date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All the content present is relevant.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, it references civic engagement within mental health services, in low and middle-income countries.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral
 * 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? The content is backed up by reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources cited are thorough.
 * Are the sources current? the sources are current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources are diverse.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is well-written and is organized well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is well-organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images presented.
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

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? The content added improves the overall quality of the article and makes it more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content added is in the specific examples provided of civic engagement in countries around the world. He also provides many clear instances of errors in flow and tone in the original article and provides ways he can improve these flaws.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content can be improved by creating a more clear lead section that effectively introduces what will be discussed later in the article.