User:Maddiedufault/End Overdose Non-Profit/Skelley01 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?

Maddiedufault

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Maddiedufault/End Overdose Non-Profit - Wikipedia
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Hi! I think it's super cool that you are writing a brand-new article from scratch! You have clearly done some great research and your statistics are super thorough!

I would recommend adding a lead section to your article. Currently, it just dives into the mission and values section without a general overview of the topic which would be beneficial to an outside reader.

Another big thing I would add to your article is citing your sources directly. I can see in your bibliography that you have several sources, but none of them are cited in the article. From what I can see, it's unclear where you are getting your information from. I would also recommend linking to other articles on Wikipedia wherever relevant, such as the colleges you've listed.

I like how you've added several subheadings, but I think the overall organization would look better if you used the underlined headings rather than just bolding the headings. Every heading and subheading being bolded makes the overall article kind of confusing and hard to follow.

I think your new article meets the notability requirement since I see that you have 3 sources outside the official website. It would be clearer that the subject is notable if I could see what information was coming from the secondary sources and what information was coming from the primary sources.

You have definitely improved the article since one didn't exist before and I think a few simple citations and formatting changes would make it even stronger!

Also, before you finalize the article, make sure to do a final read through for typos, I noticed one in University of Florida on your list of programs.