User:Porter Bausch/User:Porter Bausch/sandbox/Kyle Uphus Peer Review

General info
Porter Bausch
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Porter Bausch/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Peer Review Lead In

 * The article gives a good brief introduction to each topic
 * Entire article needs more sources, and more development of each topic

Article Lead Section

 * Gives a good introduction to the topic, but has no citations, so it completely lacks credibility

Structure

 * The Lead In section is effective in giving context, but would be better off with leaving the existing lead in on the page
 * The Segregation section doesn't present information in the way that it should be presented, but it is a good start and is organized well. Instead of giving commentary on the source, provide the information that you learned from the source.
 * The Community Policing section is underdeveloped, but has an adequate foundation. Has the same problem as the Segregation section, as it gives commentary on the source
 * The Nutritional Health Section has a lot of good information, and is organized well, but lacks citations.
 * The Covid Complications and Protocol has good information, but also provides commentary on the source rather than information from it

Neutral Content

 * The article is neutral, but does focus on only the negative aspects of each section

Reliable Sources

 * The sources are all academic journals, except for one book, but none of the sources push biased information
 * Overall lack of sources, the Lead In section has 0 sources, and all of the other sources have a lot of information from only one source.

Reviewer Reflection

 * I will make sure that I have a sufficient amount of sources so that I don't have an unbalanced amount of information from one source
 * I will make sure I cite the information that I get from each source
 * I will make sure I don't introduce a topic and leave it underdeveloped