User:Stewartjordan625/Harm principle/Oludara Orederu 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? (provide username)  Stewartjordan625
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Stewartjordan625/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, it does not appear that the Lead has been updated to reflect the new content as the there is no information about critiques of the harm principle in the Lead, and that is what the new information that my peer added is about.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, however the section about the critiques should be added.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is quite concise and has a good amount of detail in it, more detail can be added.

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? No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content that has been added is neutral. There are no persuasive claims that are urging readers to hold any specific belief.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the claims are neutral and informative.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, there are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. My peer's choice of adding critiques of the harm principle was very good and this article needs this addition to balance the article out and have a well balanced view of the harm principle.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it does not seem persuasive in nature.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, there is most likely more available literature on the topic but the sources chosen are relevant to the specific claims that are being made.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I tried the two links that were added and they both worked.

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? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the new information is going to be in a new section.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? I do not believe my peer added images.
 * 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

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? The article is definitely more complete with the addition of adding a critique sections. This added content has improved the overall quality of the article as it gives a more wholistic view of the harm principle.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content added is that a gives a very good general idea of the critiques of the harm principle.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think the added content could be improved by going into further depth of the critiques of the harm principle. Instead of addressing those that have made critiques of the harm principles as scholars maybe it would be helpful to include their names and something that shows the validity of the claims that they are saying against the harm principle. Also, the "In US libertarianism" section is also very short and does not seem complete. Completing this section of removing it all together may be something to consider.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the addition of the critique was a great idea and I believe my peer is off to a great start! I think the article will benefit from adding more information to the critique section. There are also sections in the article that appear to be quite sparse like the "In US libertarianism" section. The Lead needs to be updated to include the additions that were made in the article.