User:Ylim4/Earlimart Pesticide Poisoning/Ariellemei Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ylim4, Ethanwon14


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ylim4/Earlimart_Pesticide_Poisoning?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes. My peers included an introduction to the topic which leads into the information that will be provided.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. The introduction provides background information about the case the my peers researched for their topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes. The introduction briefly summarizes the case of the Earlimart pesticide poisoning.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? There isn't enough written to answer this yet.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? So far, the information is clear and easy to read. There are a few grammar mistakes but they can easily be overlooked because the information is understandable.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. There is a section that explains the pesticide that caused the pesticide poisoning. The headings that have been written to form an outline of the article also indicate that the impact of the case will be discussed.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? There are not any sources cited to indicate if the information is recent and reliable.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? So far, the written content is relevant to the topic. After giving a brief summary of the case, the pesticide that caused the case is discussed in detail.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I'm not really sure. Pesticides are a well-known topic, but this specific case may not be as well-known.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes. The language used is very neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is not enough information in the article yet because it is incomplete right now.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. The language in the article doesn't cause the reader to form opinions on the topic or take sides regarding the topic.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not right now. There are no citations in the article yet.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) I am unable to answer this right since there are no citations yet.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? n/a
 * Are the sources current? n/a
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? n/a
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) n/a
 * Check a few links. Do they work? n/a

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. The writing is not too wordy nor too short.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few grammatical errors but they can easily be fixed (ie. missing commas).
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. There is a sort of outline present because there are headings and subheadings that indicate what information will be talked about next.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

There are no images or media added.


 * 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 for 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? There are no articles cited yet, so it's hard to tell.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? n/a
 * 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? I am assuming that the article is only similar to other articles because it is organized by heading and subheadings.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? I don't think the article is linked to any other article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? My peers are writing their own article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is very clear and easy to understand.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think citations could be added to provide more information beyond what is written so far.