User:Regoc14/Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program/Adam conlon 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? Regoc14
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Regoc14/Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There is no lead
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes there is no bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * 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? No the facts are sited with sources.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? For the most part they are current, the oldest are from 99 and 94.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they all work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is easy to read.
 * 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

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


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

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
 * 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
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes there are links to other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths are the amount of information that is included and the organization of the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? Some sections could be cut down to get straight to the point if the author felt it fit, other than that I do not see how to improve it other than adding a lead to summarize all the sections in the beginning.

Overall evaluation
My evaluation is that the article contains a lot of good information on the subject. Someone could read this article and leave it knowing a good amount about TEFAP, which is the ultimate goal of a Wikipedia article.