User:Regoc14/Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program/PaigeCarmichael1 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?
 * 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?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content added mostly seems relevant to the topic, the only issue I noticed is that the "Economic Effects" section seems a little out of place. I think more broad economic effects as opposed to specific elasticity of demand would be more relevant to the topic and flow a little better in the overall article.

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 content added does seem neutral, but I do worry that the "Perceptions and Use" section generalizes information using only a few sources. I think that the claims about groups of people's attitudes toward the program could benefit from an introduction saying what source reported these attitudes. Then the information is presented as from a source and not necessarily applicable to all people.

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?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
See above about the sources in the "Perceptions and Use" section, maybe getting some more sources to add to this information or even some opposing view points would add to the strength of the section.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is organized well and adds interesting information to the current article.

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?

Images and media evaluation
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?
 * 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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

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
I think this is a great article to make contributions to. I like that you added the "Economic Effects" section as it provides interesting information that might not be usually considered. I do think the section would benefit from some more broad economic effects, maybe if you can find data on effects in history that would be something good to add to strengthen the section. I also like the "Perceptions and Use" section but think it could benefit from some more sources to add viewpoints to the material. Overall I think your contributions are a good addition to this page. It might be good to consider updating the "Foods Available" section to give some more information. Maybe add in some examples of different state preferences. That is another section in the current article though, not anything that you edited this round.