User:Ryandelorbe/For profit education/Aforste Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ryandelorbe


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFor-profit_education&data=05%7C01%7Calforste%40my.uno.edu%7Cb7051e1599af419cd5d808dac0d9cbb7%7C31d4dbf540044469bfeedf294a9de150%7C0%7C0%7C638034338905529550%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=4xAs%2BNo5cTS56du2UXW9gkQCahJxMImZze02r1T0kxg%3D&reserved=0


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead section is clear and contains no bias. I do think the lead is missing some information, it mentions countries in the lead that I expected to see in the article that weren't there but then had a section on other countries. Other than that it contains the information within the article and straight to the point. Within the article with the countries listed it all contains information for profit education and how it's used so the topic is consistent. Looking at the information included in the article it seems to be up to date there's only one where the information is from 2010 which can be considered to be out of date. The only thing missing is information on China; it's the only one without any information listed. It does contain information on Indigenous students, non english speaking students and low economic backgrounds, I considered the article to meet with wikipedia's equity gap. The information within the article is neutral. I don't see any bias or feel an influence on my opinion while reading this article. There is information where it's for and against the for profit so i don't think anything is under or over represented. I do think where there are citations it is accurate just a few spots where I think there should be a citation but other than that citations are well placed. Looking at the sources listed they are diverse; there's sources from other countries outside of the United States and by looking at the dates on the articles I would say that some are out of date. I clicked on a few of the links and they are active and working which is good. I found the article to be very clear and easy to understand. I wasn't confused by any of the information or question of whether it belonged or not. Each section is broken down by a country per section which allows the reader to compare the countries and see the difference. The article is supported by eight sources but Australia's section seems to need another supported source. The article does link itself to other articles making it more accessible. Some strengths are the sources used and the formatting of it. I would suggest adding an image or two to the article and adding information to the China portion.