User:Miaecampbell/Sanctuary/Sion00 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? Miaecampbell
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Miaecampbell/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * 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?

Lead evaluation
Not relevant.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content in both sections are very relevant and import to understanding sanctuary. The content is very up to date, while you are more talking about the history of how sanctuary came to be and its history in different societies I know it is the most up to date information available. I think that in sanctuary in contemporary society it could be interesting to talk a little more in depth on what sanctuary is like in the U.S. today than just offering housing and legal services. Such as talking about how they advocate for lgbtq+ immigrants, file lawsuits and lobby for policies that protect immigrants and talk a little more about how the legal services are so important for immigrants to receive asylum and resettle. Here is something I have in my article that could be useful : Asylum seekers that have legal representation and help are three times more likely to win, yet one third go into court unrepresented.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is very neutral. I do not see any bias in your writing, you are actually representing a side that hasn't been represented. You are not persuading people to believe anything, you are just giving a history.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I do not see any of your sources. Eventually you will have to go in and cite your sources at the end of the sentences where you used them. I know your sources and know they are good.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
I think your organization is great. Everything flows well. I didnt see any grammatical errors. I think some sentences may be run on's so just edit it a little to make sure sentences arent too long.

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?

Images and media evaluation
I do not believe images are needed.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I love the section the tradition of sanctuary. Its to interesting and relevant to talk about how sanctuary has existed in many other societies forever. I think in the section about contemporary sanctuary it would be interesting to talk a little more about what sanctuary looks like today and how many people sanctuaries help and how they do that. Overall it looks really good!