User:Thaoduong98/The Beveridge Model/Danaorow 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? Thaoduong98
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Thaoduong98/The Beveridge Model

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, as the article has not been created prior to this assignment.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it does not, however, this is a quick fix and could be added.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, there are references to the UK government, however there is little to no information in the article body paragraphs that expands on this information
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I would argue that the Lead leans more toward the overly detailed side as there are specific information.

Lead evaluation
Overall, ThaoDuong98's Lead is a great start for a article built from the ground up.

There are a few things that need to be added and could be revised as more research and information is presented throughout the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, criticisms and history are relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I feel that "Coverage and Costs" can possibly be re-worded as a major section to something more general like "Finance" or "Economy"

Content evaluation
The content is very brief, but this is understandable due to the starting of the article, as the article is developed, the content will and should be more substantial.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content has an overall neutral point of view as Thaoduong98 avoids words like "Most / Best / As opposed to" etc.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Nope, everything presented so far in the article feels very neutral.
 * 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?
 * Not at all, there doesn't seem to be any form of debate or persuasion.

Tone and balance evaluation
The general tone and balance of the article is fair and should be maintained as the article continues to develop.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, there is information under "Coverage and Costs" as well as "History" that are not cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All links in the references are working links.

Sources and references evaluation
Overall the sources and references are working links that cite specific parts of the text.

This article could use more sources and probably will as you develop the content.

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 overall content in its form as a first draft, there are some grammatical and spelling errors and requires some proofreading. However, this can be understood as it's the early stages of this article. Additionally, the content presented is already well-organized. As a "Model", a diagram or a table as a visual could help readers understand the content without being so text-heavy.

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
There are currently no images presented in the article. However, this is an improvement that could be developed.

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
The article is presented well for a start and could include more information.

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
Overall, this article is well presented as a first draft. I'm excited to see it as it develops along!