User:Rnguyenhist463uo/Office of Price Administration/CBailey24 Peer Review

<User:Rnguyenhist463uo | Office of Price Administration

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

No edits to review
- There hasn't been a draft for the article written, but there has been sources. The sources look reliable and they provide information that is relevant to the topic.

- I would say there is a lack in information when it comes to the Administrators in Office, maybe discuss what that means. If possible, I would extend the information on OPA points, I know there is a lot of information for us to follow from our readings. You could probably extend this area to discuss what OPA is a little and how it plays into the "Office of Price Administration".

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Rnguyenhist463uo
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Office of Price Administration

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? In the article, the introductory paragraph provides this
 * 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, all information is in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No. I think there could be more detail

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is historical facts
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, I think it is also hard to tell right now because there wasn't much added yet
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, again it is historical fact

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, articles added were "Consumers' Republic" and "How About Some Meat?"
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, very much so
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Easy to read and well written
 * 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. Because the edits made are already placed in the article, I have noticed that they are well-organized and fit the section that the edits were made into

==== Organization evaluation : Looks great on this front! I would say the only change is to make sure that whatever edits are made in the draft or otherwise, they are placed in the correct sections. They are right now, so just keeping that consistent. ====

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media - no media or pictures added


 * 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?
 * 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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Not yet
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It was a continuation of the section that the edits were added in to. There was corrections to past information because there was more up-to-date information that needed to be mentioned.
 * How can the content added be improved? I would just keep adding more content. There needs to be more information on what OPA is in general and I think there are many resources that can complete this section.