User:RedHead102/Rural development/Noah Wetz Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

RedHead102


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RedHead102/Rural_development?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Rural development

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - no, maybe add something to the lead?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?- Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?- For the most part
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?- No I think this a good start. maybe just some elaboration.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?- No, however, it is one perspective
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?- Yes, however, you are providing one perspective to the one already listed so I think this is okay. I would say both sides need to just provide more evidence for their argument. Maybe you can update the above section as well.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?- No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?- Yes, You should beef up both arguments or just give cold facts because currently it just feels like reading two people debating about the effectiveness of NGOs in developing countries. Maybe just state that there is controversy that surrounds this topic and state the two sides accurately.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - No, The entire first section paragraph only has one source even though there are multiple claims in there that need to be backed up by a citation. For example, the second and third sentences in the first paragraph. The first sentence in the case study section and the first and second sentences in the last paragraph. While you may just know this information off the top of your head it still needs to be backed up by citations.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) - Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?- Yes but they are one side of the argument.
 * Are the sources current?- Yes and no. one is from 1996 but really I think it is still good.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?- No, I would say you need more sources and from a wider perspective.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)- Yes there are.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?- No but it may be Wiki's fault on this one.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?- Kind of. You can definitely be more clear and concise. For example, your first sentence could be more concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?- Yes, but they are very minor. For example, "financial ministry" instead of "finance ministry." The article could just be cleaned up a little bit more but it is decent.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?- Yes, maybe you will want to add more topics to this section?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?- Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?- No, you need more. As of now I only see 3 sources that you have used for your addition.
 * 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?- Yes and no. I think you should restructure the entire section. Maybe say the pros of NGOs and cons of NGOs and make a section for each?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?- No, you should link other wiki articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?- Yes but it could use more work.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?- Strong evidence in support for NGOs
 * How can the content added be improved?- make it more neutral. I think your best bet is to make two sections within this "The role of NGOs/non-profits in developing countries" where one states the advantages and one states the disadvantages.

(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.)