User:Sasharoach/User:Maddiedufault/End Overdose Non-Profit/Sasharoach Peer Review

General info
Maddiedufault
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Maddiedufault/End Overdose Non-Profit:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * n/a:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added
 * The lead does not include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic- there is no lead, just goes into content
 * The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections (no lead)
 * The lead does not include information that is not present in the article (no lead)
 * The lead is not concise or overly detailed (no lead)

Content
Guiding questions:


 * The content added is relevant to the topic
 * The content added is up-to-date
 * There is not content that does not belong, but is missing a lead
 * The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, and does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * The content added is neutral
 * There are not claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position
 * There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented
 * The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * All new content is not backed up by a reliable secondary source of information- there are no sources
 * The content does not accurately reflect what the cited sources say- there are no sources
 * Sources are not thorough - there are no sources
 * Sources are not current- there are no sources
 * Sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors, they do not include historically marginalized individuals where possible- there are no sources
 * There are better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites- no sources listed
 * Links do not work- no sources listed

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Content added is well-written - i.e. It is concise, clear, and easy to read
 * The content added does not have any grammatical or spelling errors
 * The content added is. well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic

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


 * The article does not include images that enhance understanding of the topic
 * Images are not well captioned- no images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There are no images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There are no images

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * The article does not meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. The article is not 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? there are no sources- list is not exhausted
 * The article follows the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contains any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles
 * The article does not link to other articles so it is more discoverable

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * The content added has improved the overall quality of the article -it is all new information to wikipedia and is valuable
 * Strengths: clear background and context of the non profit, very thorough and lengthy information
 * Content can be improved by adding images, sources, and more clearly defining sections (Underlining and increasing text size of headings)