User:Katey.P/Indigenous Land Conflicts on the Mexico–United States Barrier/Kardon99 Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
- Katey.P
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- N/A (this is a new article)
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- No - but it appears that one is being constructed from the author's written to-do list
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No - does not mention formal opposition / protests
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Concise and to the point
Lead evaluation
[edit]Other than a missing intro sentence, the lead section is mostly good. Sets an accurate framework of what will be discussed. The beginning of the final paragraph is slightly vague / confusing - this should be tuned up.
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- No - this topic deals with a wide range of implications and more could be discussed, but seems that important points are covered
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- Yes - deals with historically marginalized groups and inequities
Content evaluation
[edit]This topic is important and the article discusses a range of conflicts arising from the Mexico-US barrier. It may be worthwhile to include some more current events relating to border-wall developments as well as public opinion polls for both dominant and marginalized groups (if available). Content includes recent events and appears to be up to date.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No - however, facts of the situation inevitably lead towards sympathy for indigenous peoples
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Indigenous viewpoints overrepresented relative to viewpoints of nation states, however, that appears to be the intent of the article (to voice marginalized viewpoints / underrepresented facts of the situation)
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No - everything is objective
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The article is geared towards sharing the indigenous perspective on the Mexico-US barrier, however, it remains fact-based and neutral.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Sources include a good variety but could bring in more available literature
- Are the sources current?
- Mostly current, but older articles still relevant here
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Yes - diverse group of authors AND includes marginalized individuals
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Overall, good use of sources. However, this is lots of history on this topic and more could always be brought in.
Organization
[edit]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?
- None detected
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes - breakdown is comprehensive and fits the content
Organization evaluation
[edit]The article is well organized into sections and sub-sections. No major grammar or spelling errors were detected.
Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- N/A
- Are images well-captioned?
- N/A
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- N/A
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- N/A
Images and media evaluation
[edit]N/A - no images or media included.
For New Articles Only
[edit]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 - more than 3 quality sources
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- The list of sources provides a good baseline of the available literature, however, it is not representative of all available literature
- 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 - but could benefit from more links
New Article Evaluation
[edit]The article fills an information gap and provides historically marginalized perspectives. More sources could be brought in, but a good base of literature has already been started.
Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- N/A (this is a new article)
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- Highlights historically marginalized perspectives
- Information is fact-based and comes from reliable sources
- Organized nicely and very easy to follow along
- How can the content added be improved?
- Intro line in lead section necessary - also, final paragraph of lead section should be cleaned up
- More depth on issues - i.e. displacement, day-to-day burden, lack of voice in policy discussions
- Include other types of formal oppositions
Overall evaluation
[edit]Overall, this article does justice to indigenous peoples who are negatively impacted by a conflict relating to nation states that do not properly acknowledge their sovereignty. More detail relating to issues and opposition could be included, and the lead section needs work. It may also be interesting to include motives for Mexico and the US for their historical policies and actions, as well as public opinion of Mexicans and Americans contrasted with opinion of indigenous peoples. Keep up the good work!