User:Ryleatrudeau/Eugenics in the United States/Holdenhansli 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? Ryleatrudeau
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Eugenics in the United States (original, not her edits)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead is good. It briefly defines eugenics and has certain keywords linked to their own Wikipedia page in case the reader needs a more in-depth definition or understanding. It's brief and concise, yet informative and provides a general overview for the rest of the article. I would probably add a sentence or two describing positive eugenics and negative eugenics and introducing the involuntary sterilization that's mentioned later in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Some of the content could be updated as there aren't many current sources. A new section could be added that addresses eugenics in modern society and the consequences of eugenics that we still have today. I like how since this is a page specifically for eugenics in the US, it doesn't focus on Nazi Germany but mentioned how what was happening here influenced what happened there. I like how throughout the content there are numerous other Wikipedia links and citations.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Generally, the content is neutral. Eugenics is bad, yet the content isn't emotional or angry, it simply tells the facts about how eugenics was implemented in the United States. I like how everything is in chronological order and shows how eugenics evolved across the US and ultimately fizzled out when compulsory sterilizations were prohibited. Even though essentially everyone disagrees with eugenics, the topic is still described fairly and truthfully.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Every link that I clicked on worked and there are numerous references. I believe that the references are well-rounded and fairly current (there could be a few more recent ones added). Everything throughout the article appears to be well-cited.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
I didn't notice any grammatical or spelling errors, but I do think that some of the sentences could be reworded. I like the sections that the content was broken down into and how they were in chronological order.

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?

Images and media evaluation
There are a few images in the article and Rylea could add more, but the ones that are in there are cited and captioned.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is fairly good. I think there are some aspects and sections that could be added onto and reworded. There could also be some new pictures added throughout the article.