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.

Whose work are you reviewing?

Maddiedufault

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Maddiedufault/End Overdose Non-Profit

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

n/a

Guiding questions:

• The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added
• The lead does not include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic- there is no lead, just goes into content
• The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections (no lead)
• The lead does not include information that is not present in the article (no lead)
• The lead is not concise or overly detailed (no lead)

Guiding questions:

• The content added is relevant to the topic
• The content added is up-to-date
• There is not content that does not belong, but is missing a lead
• The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, and does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics

Guiding questions:

• The content added is neutral
• There are not claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position
• There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented
• The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another

Guiding questions:

• All new content is not backed up by a reliable secondary source of information- there are no sources
• The content does not accurately reflect what the cited sources say- there are no sources
• Sources are not thorough - there are no sources
• Sources are not current- there are no sources
• Sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors, they do not include historically marginalized individuals where possible- there are no sources
• There are better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites- no sources listed
• Links do not work- no sources listed

Guiding questions:

• Content added is well-written - i.e. It is concise, clear, and easy to read
• The content added does not have any grammatical or spelling errors
• The content added is. well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• The article does not include images that enhance understanding of the topic
• Images are not well captioned- 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

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• The article does not meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. The article is not 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? there are no sources- list is not exhausted
• The article follows the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contains any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles
• The article does not link to other articles so it is more discoverable

Guiding questions:

• The content added has improved the overall quality of the article -it is all new information to wikipedia and is valuable
• Strengths: clear background and context of the non profit, very thorough and lengthy information
• Content can be improved by adding images, sources, and more clearly defining sections (Underlining and increasing text size of headings)