User:Tcharwood73/Poverty/PaigeCarmichael1 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?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
While I don't think you want to make editing the lead of the article part of your contribution, I do think it would be helpful to add a sentence to the current lead to link it to the sections you are going to add. This doesn't have to be anything major, just linking your paragraphs.

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Content evaluation
The content seems balanced and relevant to the topic. There is only one older article cited (Citation 3), maybe this information could be supplemented with a second more current article with similar information?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added does seem to have a neutral tone and provides factual contributions. The only place I noticed a claim that might be considered biased is in the "Healthcare Effects" section: "Despite growing concern about access to healthcare for those who cannot afford private insurance". I don't know if this is a growing concern for everyone and I think including it might indicate some bias.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All of the links I checked worked. Almost all of the sources are current (only one older one mentioned above).

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
I think this is a key strength to this article. The content flows very nicely and the writing is clear and concise.

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?
 * 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?

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
One key strength in my opinion is the writing style and clarity of material presented here. The article contributions flow well and read very professional. One possible addition to the material could be how people in poverty currently pay for/ have access to health care. Maybe outlining key support programs now that assist those in poverty would allow readers to have a more full view of the current situation. A second possible addition is more information for the "Healthcare Effects" section. This is a very interesting topic and I would love to see more sources the report on this material. I think adding some other view points/ studies that have been conducted would strengthen this interesting section.