User:Studentnumberunknown/User:Misspaulinac/The Rebuild Foundation/Jchoi209 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

 * User:Misspaulinac/The Rebuild Foundation
 * User:Misspaulinac/The Rebuild Foundation

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes. Updated description box and hyperlink
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. Discussed art, cultural development, and transforming neighborhoods.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Could add a little more info or introductions to the article section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise, can add a little more.

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?
 * There could be more sources added to the first content. Also could introduce the location of the building.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I saw that there were some politics regarding the organization. Maybe take a look at it and see if there are underrepresented ideas about the organization
 * https://southsideweekly.com/cracks-in-theaster-gates-rebuild-foundation/
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The sources i've seen, yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There are a few sources that need to be cited for the literature.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

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?
 * Continue with edits.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. Organization of each project along with the specific programs and awards for it is organized.

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


 * 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

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?
 * Source 2 is a primary source
 * There are sources from Huffpost, Forbes magazine that may not be too reliable
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Are there more sources that have not been cited? There are a lot of literature that don't have sources with it.
 * 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?
 * Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overalJchoi209 (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)l quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I included a few hyperlinks and cited a source from the literature. I also made a few edits to grammatical/spelling errors that helped the article to be more complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths are that hyperlinks help audience understand further about the literature that is being addressed.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content can be improved by adding more citations and sources to support the literature.
 * It can also include sections about politics that relate to the article.
 * The 'bolding' and organization with that can be changed around.

Overall evaluation
~