User:MRizk645/Office of Price Administration/CBailey24 Peer Review

<User:MRizk645 | Office of Price Administration

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

No edits to review (yet)
- There are no edits to review yet. I know Moe told me he has been busy and is working towards completing those edits.

- I would say there is a lack in information when it comes to the Administrators in Office, maybe discuss what that means. If possible, I would extend the information on OPA points, I know there is a lot of information for us to follow from our readings. You could probably extend this area to discuss what OPA is a little and how it plays into the "Office of Price Administration".

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? MRizk645
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Office of Price Administration

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? In the article, the introductory paragraph provides this
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all information is in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No. I think there could be more detail

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? No content added yet
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. But more needed
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Content missing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? No content added yet
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No content added yet
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No content added yet, but form the article all the viewpoints are facts of history so they are good viewpoints that are neutral. Just adding more content
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No content added yet

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No new content from this user or sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No sources yet
 * Are the sources current? No sources added yet
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No sources added yet

==== Sources and references evaluation : Create the bibliography to help address information that is up-to-date. And reliable links that are not journals or articles that are unreliable. Creating the bibliography will really help set the tone for what content you want to add and making sure that it can be added in the article. ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Easy to read and well written with what is in the article so far
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No content yet
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No content added yet

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media - no content added yet


 * 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? I would say adding content that this user sees fit will be helpful.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? No content added yet - can't peer review
 * How can the content added be improved? Making sure it is reliable and neutral with how it is written without being plagiarized