User:R5shahucsd/Peer mentoring/RealShirty Peer Review

General info
R5shahucsd
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Lead:
Lead is somewhat meandering and does not cover all topics contained in the article. The first paragraph of the lead, in my opinion, ought to be significantly reduced to just give an overview of what peer mentoring is. Lead could also briefly touch on peer mentoring in education vs. the workplace vs. healthcare.

Content:
There's some discussion of "youth mentoring", which seems to clash with peer mentoring, as I wouldn't expect youths to be qualified to mentor slightly younger kids. That point could be clarified.

Way too many direct quotations, especially rambling blockquotes, which violate Wikipedia's plagiarism policy. These should be removed and, if important enough, just summarized. Similarly, research studies will be discussed directly within the article instead of just summarizing what the relevant takeaways are and citing the reference.

"Criticisms" subsection says that peer mentees have the highest attrition rate without reference to any source to validate such a claim. It could use research to cite properly, if it's true (I find it hard to believe personally).

Overall, the discussion of peer mentoring in education is very thorough (perhaps overdone). More detail would be beneficial when discussing peer mentoring in other contexts, such as the workplace and healthcare, whose sections aren't as fleshed out. I'd focus any new research you do on those other contexts outside of education.

Tone:
The tone is academic enough, but the article reads as more of an essay than an encyclopedia entry. Cleaning up lengthy sections and adhering to Wikipedia's plagiarism policy would go a long way towards improving the style of the article, I think.

Sources:
Sources generally look pretty good!

Organization:
Ordering of sections makes sense, but "In education" and "Peer-mentoring in higher education" seem extremely redundant and even a bit long individually ("In education" even has an "In higher education" subsection). Those two sections should probably be condensed into one and then cleaned up. Honestly, the evaluation of specific programs in the "Peer-mentoring in higher education" might not be appropriate at all. Why were these programs chosen to be reviewed, and how do they provide a holistic view of peer mentoring for the purpose of the article? Maybe extract key points and scrap the rest.

Media:
Article could benefit from images. Just google images "peer mentors" and filter usage rights for creative commons license?