User:MrrrAndersonnn/Internet Poverty In New Hampshire (Initial Draft Outline)/Regoc14 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? There isn't a lead (section above the table of contents)
 * 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
The idea for this article is great! However, it definitely seems to be missing a "lead" section. When drafting the "lead", be sure to include it before the table of contents. In addition, be sure to briefly summarize the article's topic and main parts. I think that the article wold benefit by explaining what "internet poverty" is or at least include a hyperlink to this concept.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all the sources are recent. One source even includes a July 2019 article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes.

Content evaluation
Most of the article's sections could use some additional information. Specifically, the "Access to Broadband Section" seems to be missing both sources and information pertaining to the availability of broadband internet in specific New Hampshire counties. The "Poverty Section" also is missing information as well. It seems that the first two parts of this section ("Northern Counties" and "Southern Counties") are only about general poverty in New Hampshire and not its relationship to broadband internet and its effect on poverty. Similarly, the second paragraph in the "overview section" contains information relating to poverty and geography, but not its relationship to a lack of internet access. The next two sections, have great opening lines. However, they don't have source to support them and do not go into detail that explains how broadband internet affects the poverty level. The "Policy Solutions" section also needs information and especially citations that correspond to the contents of the "Existing" sub-section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content has a neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, 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? No.
 * 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
The sources in this article are up-to-date, reliable, and contain functional links. Some more secondary sources from existing literature on the topic could be added to strengthen the article's content. In addition, some statements made in the article require citations. It would be important to include a citation or hyperlink for the overview section's definition of "internet poverty" (first sentence). I am unaware that "internet poverty" is an existing concept or term: if it isn't, I'd advise not including it at all, but if it is, then I'd cite it or provide a link.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
The article is mostly well-written and clear with the exception of a few incomplete sentences. The only error I spotted was in the first sentence of the overview section in which you state "individual or individuals suffers"; suffers should be changed to "suffer". This seems like the article's only grammatical mistake, which demonstrates that it is clearly well-written. The content is well organized and reflects relevant information to the content. The "headers" are concise, which strengthens the article. However, there seems to be some missing information or information that seemingly doesn't belong.

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? mostly
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Images and media evaluation
My most important recommendation would be to provide the license and copyright information for the images, otherwise they will be deleted by Wikipedia. Also, I'd made sure to consider a different caption for the diagram in the "poverty levels" section. Instead of stating "poverty disparities exist between northern and southern regions of New Hampshire, perhaps it would be better to state the title in a more concise, objective tone: "Poverty disparities between northern and southern region of New Hampshire". The current caption sounds almost like the author is arguing that disparities exist, while the latter caption states that they do. I may be totally incorrect with this observation, however.

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? Almost
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Possibly.
 * 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

New Article Evaluation
The article is similar in style and organization to other articles, it also includes hyperlinks. However, the author should consider using more secondary sources and peer-reviewed articles. The only secondary source seems to be a news article on the subject.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


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

Overall evaluation
The content of this article is totally new, which makes the article unique and special. However, the article, in my opinion, needs many improvements in order to be published. I have listed many of these suggestions above, however I will very briefly sum up my recommendations: the images need to adhere to Wikipedia's license and copyright policies; needs to define, provide hyperlinks to, or cite some of its terms and concepts (ex- "internet poverty"); should takeout irrelevant information or at least explain how that information is relevant to the topic (ex-there are some sections where the author talks about poverty in NH, without actually describing its relationship to lack of internet access in the state). Other suggestions I have made can be seen above. It's an interesting article and one I will enjoy reading once it is complete! I'd say its among the most unique in our class! The author also does not need to worry about format or grammatical issues; this article visually looks very professional.