User:Regoc14/Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program/Tcharwood73 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? (provide username) 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? Article starts with history section, which is not exactly a lead section. Could use a lead section to preface the material that follows.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Lead section is basically omitted.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? n/a
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? n/a
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? n/a

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Content seems reasonably up-to-date. A good deal of the sources are around 20 years old, but availability of more contemporary sources may not exist, especially for historical context on program.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content all seems appropriate, but could use a lead section to give the article a more planned feel/add organization.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content seems neutral, even when it dips into the section that covers "perceptions".
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, claims seem to be given fair weight and nothing appears biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the article seems fair.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the writing seems informative and not persuasive in nature.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The content is supported by appropriate sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? This is unknown to me, but the sources are from reputable publications.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are somewhat dated.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links I utilized worked appropriately.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is clear and plainly written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not detect any errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is fairly well organized, but as I said previously, the page could use a lead section to direct the flow of the following content.

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?

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, it has appropriate sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I am unsure.
 * 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, article is in keeping with wikipedia conventions.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, it links to other appropriate articles on welfare programs.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I am not sure of the articles completeness, but the content is of good quality.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The history section is interesting and complete.  I like that there is a section for economic effects, as that is of particular interest to our class.
 * How can the content added be improved? A lead section would add value to the article.  If the economic effects could be further extrapolated with another source, maybe one that included some numerical data, especially a chart, could add a lot of merit to the article.