This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)Jensyn23
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jensyn23/White-collar crime
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, my peer has added new content to the lead in order to provide more information about white collar crime and its implications.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the opening sentence clearly defines white collar crime and sets a formal tone for the remainder of the article
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not exactly, although the lead does discusses an example of white collar crime and the punishment, the lead does not mention the different types of white collar crime that are mentioned in one of the articles major sections.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes, the example about JP Morgan was not mentioned in the article.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, especially the example about JP Morgan, if possible I would expand on that.
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, and the sources are relevant.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nothing in particular is missing but I do think they can expand on the information they already have, such as how the government enforces law preventing white collar crime, and how white collar crime is investigated.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes.
- 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.
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes, the sources form David Conely and Georgetown Law are very reliable.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, although I think they may need more sources in order to expand on the information they already have.
- Are the sources current? Yes.
- Check a few links. Do they work? I think so, when I clicked on the superscripts they bring me to the citation.
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? No.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No exactly. As stated previously the lead does not refelct the major points of the article, but besides that the lead is well organized.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media: No images were 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?
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?
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, by expanding the lead and adding examples the article provides a more comprehensive understanding of white collar crime.
- What are the strengths of the content added? the strengths are the example of JP Morgan, and the way the author defines white collar crime. The example and the definition are bth easy to comprehend and understand
- How can the content added be improved? Simply, by expanding on the information they already have the author can add a new layer f depth so the audience can better understand white collar crime.
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)Jensyn23
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jensyn23/White-collar crime
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, my peer has added new content to the lead in order to provide more information about white collar crime and its implications.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the opening sentence clearly defines white collar crime and sets a formal tone for the remainder of the article
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not exactly, although the lead does discusses an example of white collar crime and the punishment, the lead does not mention the different types of white collar crime that are mentioned in one of the articles major sections.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes, the example about JP Morgan was not mentioned in the article.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, especially the example about JP Morgan, if possible I would expand on that.
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, and the sources are relevant.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nothing in particular is missing but I do think they can expand on the information they already have, such as how the government enforces law preventing white collar crime, and how white collar crime is investigated.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes.
- 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.
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes, the sources form David Conely and Georgetown Law are very reliable.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, although I think they may need more sources in order to expand on the information they already have.
- Are the sources current? Yes.
- Check a few links. Do they work? I think so, when I clicked on the superscripts they bring me to the citation.
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? No.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No exactly. As stated previously the lead does not refelct the major points of the article, but besides that the lead is well organized.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media: No images were 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?
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?
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, by expanding the lead and adding examples the article provides a more comprehensive understanding of white collar crime.
- What are the strengths of the content added? the strengths are the example of JP Morgan, and the way the author defines white collar crime. The example and the definition are bth easy to comprehend and understand
- How can the content added be improved? Simply, by expanding on the information they already have the author can add a new layer f depth so the audience can better understand white collar crime.