User:MrrrAndersonnn/Internet Poverty In New Hampshire (Initial Draft Outline)/Chiqueno 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? (provide username)
 * MrrrAndersonnn
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:MrrrAndersonnn/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The overview is beautifully detailed but yet concise at the same time, giving a preview of the whole article but also serving as an intro. The article links help understand what the article is about as well.

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Content evaluation
I like how each section about poverty and internet connection was broken down by each region, it thorough explained the regions with internet as well as poverty in those areas showing correlation. The existing policy solutions section is also useful, I'm not sure how wikipedia feels about other possible solutions if that's controversial or not even though you approach it in an economic manner.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
Explained information in an informative manner, even the policy suggestions weren't bias.

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? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Used a lot of sources and used them everywhere. I'm unsure what the "link" means however in certain spots.

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

Organization evaluation
Very well organized, good section headings and good sub divisions in those sections.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
Very useful image dividing the state into regions since you have different sections talking about each region.

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
This was a very well done article, plenty of references, and even images, it have everything a real wikipedia article would have. The content itself was also thorough and deep.