User:Nateleboeuf/In My Father's Kitchen/Arfleming Peer Review

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?
 * The Lead includes a description of major parts about the article but could be more clearly connected to the article's major sections.
 * I think there needs to be a sentence somewhere in the lead clearly stating that IMFK offers services such as... (and then list them).
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, it has history that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think could be more concise — the details are good and worth including, but I don't think they need so much description, such as sentences like "Reflecting on this moment that started as an exchange of lunch..."

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, pretty up-to-date — the most recent date I saw was June 2023.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think there could possibly be more sections, like maybe make a section for the history of IMFK and transfer some details from the Lead to that.
 * I think you could expand on the Life House section more, if possible
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes — homeless individuals and women who are victims of human trafficking and abuse

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?
 * I think there could possibly be more about the actual individuals who IMFK's services help... like maybe a little section about homelessness in Syracuse
 * 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?
 * Most but not alll. Some of it needs to be attributed to a source — every fact or claim you're making should have a citation!
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?
 * From what I can tell, yes.
 * Are the sources thorough?
 * Yes. I think you could add some sources about homelessness or the homeless population in Syracuse. I think there could also be more news articles or scholarly articles.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * It's hard to tell exactly but the topic of most sources is about homelessness.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?
 * Yes — sources like endhomelessness.org maybe you could find ones like these but more specific to the city of Syracuse.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * They work!

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written?
 * yes
 * Does the content added have any grammar or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized?
 * Yes, but maybe there could be more sections

For New Articles Only


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * No, I think we all need to do this better.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article?
 * Definitely?
 * What are some strengths of the content added?
 * It is very comprehensive
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think you can add more sections (a section about homelessness in Syracuse) and link to other Wikipedia articles. I think some sections, especially the Life House section, could be beefed up.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)