User:Shreyaprao/Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on prisons/Io91 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? Shreya; Shreyaprao
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Shreyaprao/sandbox/COVIDinprison

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes; COVID impacts on prisons stated & outlined.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the countries affected by COVID. Could also have a short description of "Demographics" & "Medical Access".
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
Perhaps add a brief sentence or two in the lead to set up for these two sections and their importance/timeliness.

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Content evaluation
I believe you meant to say "many scholars contend" instead of "content". Additionally, perhaps it would read better to state "Black people" instead of "Blacks" because the latter could be offensive, as well as capitalize "Black" throughout.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? While I whole-heartedly agree that the U.S. unfairly exploits Black people viajas incarceration, I believe that particular statement should have a citation in order to read less like an opinion/stance. Also, the statement: "The desire to fill up prisons to its bare ends is a product of the mass amounts of money..." should be cited or considered to be written differently as it seems like a personal analysis of the situation.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
At some points, there are statements which seem like personal connections/interpretations and changing some words would help: instead of "unfair" substitute it with "unequal", for example.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Each references additional sources, studies, and/or authors.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Almost all have multiple sections & subsections for relevant & related information; many include graphics to support statistics.
 * Are the sources current? Yes; earliest source from 2011.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All work.

Sources and references evaluation
Academic articles, scientific literature, and other news sources referenced were all professional an un-opinionated.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Examples previously indicated in former "Content" section above.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Organization evaluation
These new sections have a solid flow and tie together many aspects of the prison system in the U.S. which isn't covered in the original article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
N/A

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

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
Some nuanced wording might be better switched with less subjective phrases/synonyms or supported with a citation to demonstrate they are not the interpretations/observations from the editor. Otherwise, content is solid, has a logical setup & pace, and multiple sources are cited to make it well-rounded and informative.