User:Triestejoy/The Proxmire Amendment/Keevster 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?  Triestejoy
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Triestejoy/sandbox

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
The introductory sentence is awesome! It's very concise and straight to the point. It helps set up the rest of the article well. However, the rest of the introduction is quite lengthy and a lot of the information in there could probably fit into its own section. It's good information, but it makes the introduction longer than necessary.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Your content is very relevant to your topic, though it's a little out-of-date. Some more reliable contemporary sources would greatly enhance your article. Other than that, it seems to really be founded upon good 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
You add a lot of good information in your article. It's interesting and compelling. However, there does seem to be a tone in your writing that you don't agree with this legislation. Whether or not you believe that, the article has a tone of being against it, especially the last section. If possible, it would be great to have more information supporting it as well to get a more balanced perspective.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
It appears that you have a wide variety of good sources. They all seem cited well and thoroughly. However, they do seem a little old. Most of them seem to have been written in the twentieth century. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it would probably be good to have some more contemporary sources as well.

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
For the most part, I feel like your sections are appropriate. However, I would argue that all of the content falls under history. Maybe a more appropriate title could be "Conception" or "The Argument for Legislation." Also, watch for small errors like cannot instead of can not. Also, I have no idea what DSHEA is. It would be good to define it so your readers know what you're referring to. Also, add a Page Title so your page can be discoverable. Other than that, your organization and syntax was good.

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
You do well with your images. They are captioned well and add a layer of personality to the article. This is just a suggestion, but maybe put some images of supplements. It's not needed, but it might be nice to have an image about the subject of the Amendment.

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
I like how you've already started linking your article to other articles on Wikipedia. That is something my partner and I have yet to do. You also contain some great reliable sources. I would only suggest doing some more linking, though I'm sure you're planning on it anyways.

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
You do a great job providing good information about this topic. It's definitely something I know nothing about and I feel like I learned something from reading it. That's what's most important about these kinds of articles, right? The only things I would suggest to improve your article I've already stated above. Good luck finishing this article up!