User:TheAlexRodriguez/Neighbourhood effect/Krao01 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? TheAlexRodriguez
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:TheAlexRodriguez/Neighbourhood effect

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
''My only concern is that this seems a bit confusing in terms of structure. I was wondering where your edits in regards to the information that you'd be adding to the article would be placed. Also, if this is adding a section, I don't think you need to redefine the neighborhood effect. The content looks good, but structurally, am wondering if you could add more into the lead of the article.''

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 is all good, but am a little too broad to be designated to only the United States. I think you need to be a bit more specific with your language and make sure you are talking specifically about the United States. Looking at your sources, everything looks up-to-date, which is great! I think you should definitely add real life examples and case studies in regards to the effect you are discussing.''

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
''I think your tone for the most part, is good. One thing that is difficult with Wikipedia is not subconsciously adding in our biases when we write, and your writing does have a couple examples of that. By this, I mean referring to things as facts, when they may not actually be, or instead be correlations that researchers have found. While it may be a given for us, it is not needed in an objective article, or at least should be worded differently. But other than those couple of instances, your work is strong.''

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
''As aforementioned, all of your sources are relevant and up-to-date! I clicked on some links and they all take me to working links, so good work on that!''

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 have already alluded to this but the organization of your piece is a bit confusing, in that there is a lot of contextual information in a section that does not need it. You would benefit from focusing primarily on the United States, and making sure to focus on practices with the society that contribute to that.''

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
''I mentioned it already, but making sure that your article additions are specifically about the United States and leaving out the contextual information will make it much stronger for you. If you choose to edit the earlier parts of the article, feel free! Just make sure to note that you did.''