User:Sam kwok berkeley/Transgenerational trauma/Emga111 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? Sam kwok berkeley
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sam kwok berkeley/sandbox

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:
Great. There is a lead in the original article. Sam did not edit/draft the Lead, which is fine because it is already sufficient.

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:
I would recommend adding the key at the top- from the sandbox, it was difficult to determine what was original text and what was added without one. I had to cross-check with the original article. The content added is relevant from what I can tell. She re-wrote one section to be: "In 1966, Psychologists began to observe large numbers of children of Holocaust survivors seeking mental help in clinics in Canada. The grandchildren of Holocaust survivors were overrepresented by 300% among the referrals to a child psychiatry clinic in comparison with their representation in the general population." Sam also added a new heading/section called "Affected Groups" where she included information about descendants of slaves and refugees. Some of the information seems to be taken directly from the already existing content and placed under this new category.

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:
The content added appears to be neutral. No one viewpoint seems biased, overrepresented or underrepresented. I do not feel persuaded it any way while reading it.

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:
Sam is lacking on sources. The new section about "Descendants of slaves" does not have any citations yet, and therefore the information is not backed up. However, she does have current and thorough sources for the "Refugees" section. I tried both of these links and they both work. The section on psychologists and Holocaust survivors also is not backed up by any citations.

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:
The content is concise, clear, and easy to read. I did not identify any grammatical or spelling error. She improved the organization of the page by adding a new section/heading.

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 no images or media.

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?

New Article Evaluation:
N/A

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, it was difficult to see where Sam added very much information so it is hard to comment on whether or not the article is more complete. A key would be really helpful. The strengths is that making a new heading improved the organizational aspect and made the article flow more smoothly. The added refugee section was also informative and properly cited. I can tell Sam has as lot she is going to be adding (her notes include :[want to include section about war refugees], [ include paragraph about children], [ include cambodian refugees specifically]), and I am excited to see what new knowledge she will bring! The seem like great paths forward. Citations are definitely something to improve upon as well as adding more content. Good luck Sam!