User:Osewanne/Assistance for airline passengers with disabilities/Vmc24 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(User:Osewanne)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Osewanne/Assistance for airline passengers with disabilities


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Assistance for airline passengers with disabilities

Lead

 * The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer.
 * The lead does not include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly described the articles topic.
 * The lead includes a brief description of the article's major section (table of contents).
 * The lead does not include content that is not present in the article
 * The lead is concise and not overly-detailed

Content

 * The content added is relevant to the topic.
 * The content added is up-to-date. However, there are a few references that are more than a decade old and should be reviewed.
 * There is content missing related to other countries' policies on the issue, only the United States and the EU are included.
 * The article does relate to one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, and it addresses topic related to historically underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance

 * The content added is neutral.
 * There aren't any claims that seem heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Viewpoints from third-world countires/ non-western countries are underrepresented.
 * The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader one way or the other.

Sources and References

 * Most of the new content is missing support from reliable secondary sources of information.
 * The content accurately relfects what the cited sources say.
 * The sources are thorough and refelct the available literature on the topic.
 * Most of the sources are current. However, some are from over a decade ago and should be reviewed. This source: https://www.caa.co.uk/Passengers/PRM/Passengers-with-disabilities-and-reduced-mobility/ is not reflective of current legislation.
 * The sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * There are likely better sources available: sources that are more up-to-date, better reflect current legislation, and provide different points of view.
 * All of the links work.

Organization

 * The content added is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * The content added does not contain any spelling errors nor any grammatical errors.
 * The content added is well-organized. However, the topic of service animals may need its own section.

Images and Media

 * The article includes one photo that does enchance understanding of the topic.
 * The image is well-captioned.
 * The image adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * The image is laid out in a visually appealing way.

Overall Impressions

 * The content added has improved the overall quality of the article, making it more complete.
 * The strengths of the content added are that it further expands on the legislation surrounding the issue and it goes into further detail about the history leading up to said legislation.
 * The content can be improved by adding more references to back up and support each statement made throughout the article.