User:RongpengZ/Rescue Mission Syracuse/Jayahpatell Peer Review

General info
RongpengZ & Emichiang
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:RongpengZ/Rescue Mission Syracuse
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * NA:
 * NA:

Evaluate the drafted changes
{| class="wikitable"

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introductory sentence is a little vague and could use more detail to explain what the rest of the article is going to be about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Maybe the article could include more of a description of the major sections to give an overview of the rest of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead does not include any information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I felt that the Lead was concise with their language and straightforward.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I felt that the information was balanced and there wasn’t any part that had too much content or too little
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No the content is balanced and the tone is neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The content has an abundance of secondary source of information.
 * 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
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * 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.)
 * I thought they provided many thorough sources
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * NA

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?
 * Exhaustive; 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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I thought the article was really strong and I was impressed by the fact that it felt like a real Wikipedia article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added was really strong in that it provided holistic content of the organization.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think something that could be added to the content is the rescue mission program nationally rather than just Syracuse to give a little bit more context.
 * }