User:Rachell94/Deviance (sociology)/Michaelarcarley 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)

Rachell94

Link to draft you're reviewing:

Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviance_(sociology)

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

The lead does seem to be edited however I can not see any edits if made by Rachell94 at the time, thus no edits have been made by her yet to my knowledge.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, the Lead did include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describe the article's topic of deviance.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes, the Lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

At the end of the Lead, it gave an example of how deviance is relative to where it occurred, which was not directly relevant to each topic directly, though it was a great add on and worked well where it was placed.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The Lead was concise, and was able to map out the article in a brief manner while still maintaining important details.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

I cannot view the content added, as I cannot view Rachell94's sandbox, however what I can see is relevant to the topic.

Is the content added up-to-date?

I cannot view the content added, as I cannot view Rachell94's sandbox, however what I can see is fairly up-to-date as I can tell.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I thought that all the necessary content was there, however "Functions" could be more detailed and include more information.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

Yes, the content added has a neutral approach to it.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, though some theories discussed are biased toward particular positions in themselves, the author did a good job of not leaning toward that particular position or another while describing the theory.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

There were no viewpoints that were overrepresented, however I wish there was more information on the broken windows theory.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

I cannot view the content added, as I cannot view Rachell94's sandbox, however what I can see in the article thus far has not swayed me in a particular direction.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, all new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes, the sources do seem to be thorough.

Are the sources current?

Yes, most of the sources do seem to be current, as well as a few that are older.

Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, the links I checked do work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

I cannot view the content added, as I cannot view Rachell94's sandbox, however what I can see is well-written.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I cannot view the content added, as I cannot view Rachell94's sandbox, however what I can see for the most part does not have spelling errors.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

I cannot view the content added, as I cannot view Rachell94's sandbox, however the article does seem to be well organized.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

The article does not include images.

Are images well-captioned?

There are no images.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

There are no images.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

There are no images.

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?
  • Yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • It can always use additional sources, but is not bad.
• 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?
  • Yes
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
  • Yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

I cannot view the content added, as I cannot view Rachell94's sandbox, however what I can see thus far is decent.

What are the strengths of the content added?

I cannot view the content added, as I cannot view Rachell94's sandbox.

How can the content added be improved?

I cannot view the content added, as I cannot view Rachell94's sandbox.

Overall evaluation

Overall, I believe this article to be well-written with few mistakes, it could just benefit Fromm adding more information to specific topics.