User:MrrrAndersonnn/Internet Poverty In New Hampshire (Initial Draft Outline)/Tcharwood73 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? The lead is reflects the content of the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it doesn't specifically. The lead basically expresses what will follow.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, but most of the claims in the lead are extrapolated upon further along in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is to the point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? A lot of the content seems to run parallel to the internet access issue. There is some support for internet access as a corollary to poverty, but there feel like a lot of topics running together within this article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content seems to be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is a good deal of content. It seems complete.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content seems to support improved internet access. That doesn't seem like a problem.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the article is balanced.
 * 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? The content seems to aim for availability of high-speed internet access for better outcomes. The article is written to be informative and not persuasive.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are an abundance of sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There seems to be fairly comprehensive on the various points of the article.
 * Are the sources current? The sources appear current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links I used worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is mostly well-written. The lead section, especially the first paragraph could use some slight editing. The syntax seems odd and could be rewritten.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Only slight errors in the lead section.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the content seem to be thoughtfully organized and logically determined.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, this article includes useful, informative visual-aids.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I am unsure.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, they add to the value of the article.

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, it is suitably supported.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The sources are numerous and adequately support all claims.
 * 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, article follows conventions and appears complete.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, there are several links throughout the article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Article does seem complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The article has copious support (sources). The article is visually more complete at this stage than other student contributions. There is a good deal of content, so even if some is revised or omitted, there is still a sizable contribution.
 * How can the content added be improved? There may be some concern with the article having a lot of focuses. This doesn't seem very problematic to me, but maybe for the purview of the class, it could come up.