User:RongpengZ/Rescue Mission Syracuse/Kateconnolly02 Peer Review

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


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

SYRACUSE RESCUE MISSION PEER REVIEW
UNABLE TO VIEW/FIND ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * “Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Rescue Mission Syracuse in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.” appears when I click the link provided on the Wiki EDU page, so I am reviewing solely based off article as I do not know what is new vs old content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes!
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * A great lead, concise with just the right amount of detail

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Content is all relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, all content is relevant and they highlight the most important topics more
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Addresses the LGBTQ+ community, as well as the homeless population

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, everything stays nuetral
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, again it is very neutral and stating facts
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, a lot of great sources throughout
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, content and sources match
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, has sources with content from the establishment of the Mission to current day
 * 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.)
 * Without digging super deep, the sources cited in the article are all very different and bring in informations from various 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, very!
 * 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, good topics and subtopics

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Only included a small map
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No but i dont think captions are needed for it
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes

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?
 * Yes, many different sources
 * 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?
 * This article is very well written with a lot of relevant history and information
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Everything is very detailed with good sources to back it up
 * How can the content added be improved?