User:Vidyabhargava/Redlining/Joyy.c Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
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.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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 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?
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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Charlie, Mannat, & Vidya

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XnlfwjGXmuY7BKtU_5My_dyRLyT3Oy7KfUu9HewW-kI/edit
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Redlining

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Content - I think you are adding meaningful, important info to both the health inequality and strategies to reverse effects sections. One thing I want to note is that in the health inequality section, you seem to give a lot of detail from one study (the part referring to 2020 census data), which could kind of blur out the pain point that is trying to be made. I think it would be helpful to make this part a little more concise! I also made a comment about the strategies sections and how I think it'll be helpful to include specific examples of success stories either in the US or in other countries to back the broad suggestions you make!

Tone and Balance - Michaela made a comment about one of the sentences in the first paragraph that could be a little more neutral and I agree with her! Other than that, though, you do a good job of being representative in terms of content and views!

Sources and References - The sources you linked all seem to be reliable and legitimate! It seems like you're referring to a lot of journal articles and studies, so make sure to double check that you're not making overwhelming generalizations from the results of just one study, though!

Organization - There are specific edits noted in the Google doc itself, but overall, the writing was easy to read and follow. I think the order in which you make your points also makes sense overall and the sentences flow well with each other!

Images and Media - Have you considered adding any images as well? The current Wiki article as it is does not appear to have very many, and I think it would be very helpful, although not essential, to include a few more relevant images both to make the page more visually appealing (instead of just paragraphs and paragraphs of text) and to provide visuals that supplement the text and help readers see/understand things better!