User:Tcharwood73/Poverty/Regoc14 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): 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?
 * 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
It is unclear as to whether or not this article intends to expand on the already existing Wikipedia entry on poverty. However, I will assume that the author does intend to expand on this specific article and intends to therefore add these sections into the existing entry. If this is the case, then the author must expand the lead section to include a sentence that summarizes the sections the author intends to add.

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

Content evaluation
I think the content is interesting and factual. Perhaps it would be good to expand on the sub-section titled "healthcare effects". The relationship between poverty and health-care appears to be enormous and I'm sure the author can use more sources to add information to this section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Somewhat
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are claims that sound persuasive.
 * 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? Somewhat, but I do not beleive that this is the author's intention.

Tone and balance evaluation
Some parts of this article seem to include somewhat of a persuasive tone. The use of the word "insidious" in the second sentence of the article's "poverty and physical health" seems a bit persuasive. However, this problem can easily be fixed by choosing a less aggressive word. Maybe, my analysis of this word choice is perhaps incorrect. I wish not to point out the petty flaws within this article. However, I do think the author should consider some of the word choice. Similarly, in the paragraph titled "poverty and mental health", the author states, "Schizophrenia is also more strongly associated with poverty, a claim which proves difficult to measure," seems to also incorporate somewhat of a biased tone. This is due to the fact that the structure of the sentence seems to be stated similarly to an opinion, regardless of whether or not is intended to be neutral. A reader may interpret this sentence as sounding like an opinion. Perhaps the author should include a citation from a study whose findings suggest that schizophrenia's association with poverty is difficult to measure, or simply restructure the sentence to include a more neutral sounding tone. The second paragraph of the sub-section titled "poverty and mental health" also is construed in a manner than sounds a bit persuasive in tone.

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
The sources all appear to comprise of secondary sources. This is a huge advantage to the author's article as it is really conducive to use secondary sources for developing the content of an article. All the link appear functional and the sources are up to date. Great job!

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
The article is a little bit unclear and confusing given some of the grammatical issues, tone, and structure of the sentences. One specific edit I would make to the article would be to change the structure of the following sentence: "A hypothesis known as “drift hypothesis”, posits that for people with psychiatric disorders (primarily schizophrenia), they tend to fall further down the socio-economic ladder as their condition reduces their functionality." Instead, the author may first compose a sentence that introduces the topic of the "drift hypothesis", and then in the next sentence, provide a definition for the drift hypothesis.

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?

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Be sure to read by suggestions written above! My biggest suggestion would be for the author to restructure their sentences in a way that sounds informative as opposed to persuasive. In order to do this, the author could try to directly reference the study and directly attribute the contents of the section to the study's findings. Furthermore, the sentence that states: "access to Medicaid for low-income adults aided in diagnosis of metabolic disease, saw a reduction in diagnosis of mental health disorders, and reduced incurrence of “catastrophic medical costs” by patients dramatically" does not seem to reference a specific date or time frame. In other words, although it may be true that access to Medicaid for low-income adults aided in diagnosis of metabolic disease saw a reduction in diagnosis of mental health disorders, the significance of this reduction and how it compares to the previous level.

Furthermore, the author should be conscious of the article's sentence structure. It is important that every sentence is phrased in a clear, concise, technical way. The article should sound more like a page from an encyclopedia than anything else.

I think that the content is great! The greatest strength of this article is its use of secondary sources. The author does a great job of drawing interesting and insightful information from a list of secondary sources. This makes his article strong in regards to content.