User:Vincenzoanthony/Mexico–United States barrier/Sydneykrieger 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? (Vincenzoanthony)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Vincenzoanthony/Mexico–United States barrier

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 - I think you're missing a lead here. I would consider adding more to the current lead that is in the article. There seems to be some current content gaps in the lead specifically. I may research things to add to this lead. ====

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 I see in your sandbox seems to be a lot of content that is already included in the article. It may help to make sure the information is up to date and revise what is already there (especially the information about the Trump administration). Everything you have, however, seems up-to-date and relevant to the topic; it just needs to be fleshed out a little more. ====

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 really can't tell your tone here from the bullet points, but definitely make sure you keep it neutral, especially with the more political side of the argument. The topics you have, however, do seem fairly represented. I think you did really good with grabbing topics from all aspects of the border. ====

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 - I would say, for this section, make sure you plug the links you have in your sandbox into the actually citation function of Wikipedia. The links you have right now seem like a good start, but I would suggest using the libraries databases, especially with such a high-profile topic like the border. I can imagine there would be a million journals on this topic both historically and present. Lastly, I would be weary using CNN or USA Today, the may have strong biases, especially with a controversial topic like yours. ====

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 - Overall, I would say your organization was good. The headings in your sandbox (and already in the article) seem well broken down. I can't really see how well written your content is, so just make sure you stay concise and simple. ====

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 think you should definitely flesh out your information much more. I see the ideas you have right now, but I can't really tell where you're going to go with them. Just make sure you keep a neutral tone and be careful with biases with your sources. The ideas you have in your sandbox are definitely good starting places. ====

Peer review response- Thank you for your review of my article, I can definitely see where you are saying the gaps are. I want to add more things pertaining to the current administration to fill the gaps currently in the article. For where you had said the content is repetitive, there is a new angle that I want to take to it that adds more information to the current sections and I for sure want to add the direct links but it will be hard as some are connected to pew research and other databases. For me I think the challenge is to stay neutral with the overall topic so thank you for reminding me on that aspect of what needs to be the focus of wikipedia.