User:Natashadveirin/Disability hate crime/Sierramcdean Peer Review

Peer review: Disability Hate Crime Review by Sierra Dean
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)
 * Natashadveirin
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Disability Hate Crime

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, the lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, it does include information that is not present in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise but in need of more detail.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added provides depth through defining and listing key tasks that are effective in supporting those impacted by disability hate crimes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content added is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is not content that is missing or content that does not belong. The content added was accurately places and added depth to the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, the article does indeed address a topic related to historically underrepresented populations through explaining the impact of disability hate crimes, as well as how to support those who have experienced such hate crimes.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content added is neutral and is not biased information based on the resources cited.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are not any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. The information is strictly informative of facts and suggestions on how to best support and create change in instances where disability hate crimes have been committed.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * To my knowledge, there are neither viewpoints that are over or underrepresented in the article. The information is very neutral and address only important aspects of disability hate crime.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content added did not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. It simply defined what disability hate crimes are and key components in understanding such acts of crime.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. Natasha used an academic, peer reviewed journal from 2017.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources do reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the source Natasha specifically used is from 2017, which is current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources on the article are all written by a diverse spectrum of authors and historically marginalized individuals where possible. These include 25 different authors of literature surrounding the topic.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, I checked 5 links and they all worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content added was extremely well-written, concise, valuable, and understandable for all readers.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, the content added does not 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?
 * Yes, the content added was well-organized. I appreciated the use of a chart to best visually represent the data presented.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, the article does not yet include images that enhance understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the content Natasha added did improve the overall quality of the article. The information she added provided depth and a better understanding of the original article. She also made grammatical revisions which enhanced the entire article overall.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added include quality, non-biased information, easy to read information, and critical pieces of data that support the claims previously made in the article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content added can be improved through a few more sources, maybe one or two, that also support the ideas added to better provide even more depth and understanding of disability hate crime.

Overall evaluation
Great job Natasha! I really enjoyed reading your additions to the article, it is coming along well!