User:PaigeCarmichael1/Section 8 (housing)/Tcharwood73 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? (provide username) PaigeCarmichael1
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:PaigeCarmichael1/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Lead section is omitted, this may not be the most current draft.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? n/a
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? n/a
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? n/a
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead is not included in this portion of the sandbox. If this is the most complete version of the article, a lead must be included, especially with the density of the content therein.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Content is completely relevant.
• Is the content added up-to-date? From what I can tell, content is very up to date. Fair market rents data is very current. Sources appear reasonably new.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Apart from a lead section that dictates organization and logical flow of the article, content appears complete.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? The content seems neutral. There is a lengthy "Criticisms" section, but the tone of the article doesn't seem critical. Furthermore, much of the content within the "Criticisms" is debunking criticisms laid against section 8 by a source included previously.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There doesn't seem to be an agenda.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, viewpoints seem even-handed.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article doesn't seem to be written to persuade.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All claims and sections are supported by sources.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources appear to reflect the data available on the subject.
• Are the sources current? The sources do seem as current as is available.
• Check a few links. Do they work? The links function appropriately.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is clear and plainly stated.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I detected no errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The organization could use a lead section to explain the order of the sections to follow, and to give background on section 8. I realize that this article likely already has this, but for the purpose of your own additions, you could put a short lead in the sandbox.

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? The content has improved the completeness of the article.
  • What are the strengths of the content added? The content is strongly data-driven and presents a fair representation of opinions by experts on components, functions, or consequences of section 8.
• How can the content added be improved? The content is strong. If it fits into the final article logically, I see it as fairly complete. If the author sees fit to add more data and subsections, I suspect it would only add to the credibility. Graphs or other visual representations of the available data (FMR, etc) could aid in presentation.