User:Abains1721/Homelessness and mental health/Isabelleosorio Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review[edit]

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info[edit]

Content[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
  • Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
  • Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes.

Tone and Balance[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral? Yes. I think you did a great job in naming the perspectives!
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
  • 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? No.

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
  • Are the sources current? Yes.
  • Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? N/A
  • Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes. Sentence 2 -- "people experiencing homeless". "Housing first" is written in multiple ways, like with the dash ("housing first") or different parts capitalized ("Housing First") -- this can be more consistent. Personal choice, but I think the bullet points don't need periods.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. I think the addition of the sub-headers and bullets is great since this section is so chunky in the original article.

Overall impressions[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.
  • What are the strengths of the content added? I think that the additional headers and transitions make this section much easier to read.
  • How can the content added be improved? Not much to say here! Maybe some grammar edits here and there for consistency.