User:Meganespires/Richmond SPCA/Svanla Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Meganespires


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Meganespires/Richmond_SPCA?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Richmond SPCA

Lead
 Guiding questions: 


 *  Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?  No additions to the lead yet.
 *  Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? 
 *  Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? 
 *  Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? 
 *  Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? 

Content
 Guiding questions: 


 *  Is the content added relevant to the topic?  The content is relevant to the Richmond SPCA.
 *  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?  So far there seems to be no missing/unrelated content.
 *  Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?  N/A

Tone and Balance
 Guiding questions: 


 *  Is the content added neutral?  The content seems to be mostly neutral, although I identified one sentence in the "Events" section, "Events and fundraisers are important to the shelter as they are nonprofit organization that fully relies on donations, adoption fees, and fundraising for income." I would reword this to something like "As a nonprofit, the SPCA uses funds raised from events as well as donations and adoption fees for income." to add more neutrality.
 *  Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?  None
 *  Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?  None
 *  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?  All new content is gathered from the Richmond SPCA website.
 *  Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)  Yes
 *  Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?  Yes
 *  Are the sources current?  Yes, all sources are current.
 *  Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?  Yes- the sources vary from news sources to the Richmond SPCA themselves.
 *  Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)  To source the current content added, no.
 *  Check a few links. Do they work?  Links work!

Organization
 Guiding questions: 


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

Images and Media (N/A)
 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 (N/A)
'' If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?  Yes, the added content benefits the existing article.
 *  What are the strengths of the content added?  Well written, concise and factual content.
 *  How can the content added be improved?  More sources would benefit the content in terms of diversity. (UPDATE: More sources added that diversify the the References section!)