User:PaigeCarmichael1/Section 8 (housing)/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) PageCarmichael1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:PaigeCarmichael1/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A
 * 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
There does not need to be lead, considering that the author's article already includes an existing "lead section". However, the author must be sure to expand the main article's existing lead section so that it provides a summary for the sections she intends to include in the article.

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

Content evaluation
The author does a great job by not only adding new sections to the already existing article but also updating the current article's sections. One of the greatest advantages of this article, is that there is a whole section dedicated to studies about section 8 section. This makes it easy for the article to draw information from secondary, peer-reviewed sources. The author did an admirable job of incorporating two new studies to this section. I'd suggest that author even goes further, and incorporates a third study. However, doing so may is probably not necessary but it would surely strengthen the article's content.

Furthermore, I'd suggest that the author provides more information in regards to the significance of the program's aim "to allow voucher recipients to move into higher opportunity areas and reduce the concentration of voucher recipients in a given metropolitan area." Perhaps, the author can explain why this is the program's aim and why this aim is important. Similarly, the author can expand on some of the concepts introduced in the "Fair Market Rents" section. Specifically, the "trend factor adjustment" and "HUD". Perhaps these concepts are already explained in the existing article, but if they are not, the article should explain what these concepts mean. In addition, the author should also consider explaining why it is important that the FMRs include certain adjustments and how these adjustments effect section 8 housing residents.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is definitely neutral. I did not seem to detect any bias in any of the author's sections. The author does a great job of neutrally explaining each of the study's findings in an unbiased tone. This is an important skill to have!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 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, all of the links work well.

Sources and references evaluation
The author uses numerous primary and secondary sources to expand the article's information. However, the majority of the author's sources seem to be comprised of mostly primary sources. Perhaps the author may strengthen her article by using information from secondary literature in conjunction with the primary sources to expand and strengthen the content of the "Fair Market Rents" section and "Small Area Fair Market Rents Program". This is only merely a suggestion, however and it is evident that the author makes good use of secondary sources by using these sources (or studies) to expand the article's already existing "Studies" section.

I would suggest that the author increases the number of her citations. It seems as though there are certain instances within the article's sections (and even the already existing sections) where the information provided seems to be lacking a citation. For instance, the sentence that states: "The Small Area Fair Market Rents Program (SAFMRP) was officially implemented by HUD in January of 2017," does not appear to be a commonly known fact and is a piece of information that the author discovered through research. Perhaps I am overzealous in my attitude towards citation. I personally am in favor for more citing any form of information; however, again, this may be excessive.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
The organization of this article is very clear and well-structured. My only suggestions for the author would be to reduce the length of some of the the section's headline (specifically the "Small Area Fair Market Rents Program". In the course training, Wikipedia emphasizes the importance of limiting the length some of the section's headlines to one word. However, this suggestion may not even be necessary.

The wording of the sentence that states, "Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are calculated to determine what a landlord is able to accept for rent of a unit to a Section 8 voucher recipient" seems to not provide an actual definition of what an FMR actually is; instead, it seems to only suggest there function. (Perhaps I am reading into this incorrectly) The author should perhaps begin the section by providing a clearer definition for what an FMR is before explaining the function of the FMR.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * 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 - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


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

Overall evaluation
This is a very strong, articulate, and well worded article. There are not may changes that need to be made. However, the author should read some of the comments and suggestions I made in the above "evaluation" sections. Although every aspect/characteristic of the article seems strong, the first two sections of the article (Fair Market Rents and SAFMRP) could use some support from secondary sources to expand on their effects and specifically their effects on section 8 housing residents. In addition the author, could further explain why the SAFMRP's aim is important. You are off to a great start!