User:Tcharwood73/Poverty/Adam conlon 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? Tcharwood73
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tcharwood73/Poverty

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? n/a
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/a
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? n/a
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? n/a

Content
Guiding questions:


 * All of the content is relevant to the subject matter

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes it is neutral because it is facts about poverty and the effect that can have on someones overall health.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? It is not biased but overall the matter is subjective, even though the article states that there is a relationship between poverty and health, the bases are studies but that conclusion is not set in stone.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? They are appropriately represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it just describes the outcomes of poverty related to health in general.

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
 * Are the sources current? Most are current besides one source from 1987.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links work.

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 it is organized clearly.

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? 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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes it adds more useful information to the article, it offers an interesting perspective on poverty and how it can affect the physical being, as well as mental
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Thorough and interesting.
 * How can the content added be improved? n/a

Overall evaluation
My overall evaluation is that the content was interesting and complete. The vocabulary was very good and overall writing in general. The sources were all relevant to the subject matter and the overall organization made it easier to follow what was being written. 8.5/10