User:Tcharwood73/Poverty/Chiqueno Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * 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? No
 * 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? Opening paragraph is its own detailed section.

Lead evaluation
It doesn't appear that there is a real intro other than the first two sentences, it jumps right into the effects of poverty on health but doesn't really describe what it is. The opening paragraph is good content but it shouldn't be the lead. You should add a paragraph on top to what the page will be talking about.

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? Everything written belongs.

Content evaluation
I like who it's divided to both physical and mental health sections, and summarized in the healthcare effects section as basically an economical look to what these health outcomes do.

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? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The only part that may have some bias could be the last paragraph regarding insurance as it talks about growing concern for healthcare, but the way it was presented neutrally explains the effects of insurance on health outcomes.

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? Yes except for one
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All work

Sources and references evaluation
Good sources, hopefully the 1987 reference is still relevant.

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

Organization evaluation
Not including the lead issue, the other three sections concisely organize health outcomes of poverty. One of the paragraphs is randomly indented that needs to be fixed.

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


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

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There's 6 which was the required minimum
 * 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? Has basic sections. that's it.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No

New Article Evaluation
Maybe show how health outcomes relates to poverty more by including other wikipedia articles.

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
Great contribution, very detailed and thorough in all aspects of health and how poverty effects every bit of it. Just need a good lead.