User:Rdahl kn/Indian Rights for Indian Women/L.coyes 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? Rdahl kn
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Rdahl kn/Indian Rights for Indian Women
Lead
[edit]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?
Lead evaluation
[edit]It doesn't look like you have a lead yet, the format should be fixed. This should be added a the top before the table of contents.
[Kiana - rdahl kn: I believe this comment is on the sandbox, not the actual article here which was live October 29th.]
Content
[edit]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?
Content evaluation
[edit]- The content is up to date although the word Indian was used- unless it is being quoted, I propose that the term Indigenous should be used instead
- Relevant content that is up to date and addresses a topic that is related to historically underrepresented populations (Indigenous women).
Tone and Balance
[edit]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?
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]- The tone of the article is neutral and unbiased
- There does not seem to be any overrepresentation of underrepresentation in viewpoints around the topic.
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- 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?
- Check a few links. Do they work?
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]- Most of the content seems to be backed up by sources however some information looks like it should be cited and backed up by a secondary source
- There is a diverse spectrum of authors and sources used
- The links work
- The sources are current
Organization
[edit]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?
Organization evaluation
[edit]- There are a couple of instances where the word Indigenous is not capitalized.
- As well, the term "Indian" is used- while this is the name of the topic, I don't think it is appropriate to use unless quoting. I propose that the term Indigenous should be used instead.
- The content is well organized and broken down into relevant sub sections that all reflect the major points of the subject
- Overall well written with concise language and easy reading
Images and Media
[edit]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?
Images and media evaluation
[edit]- There are no images included
- Images should be found and added to the article to enhance it
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?
- 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?
New Article Evaluation
[edit]- Article is supported by more than 3 reliable secondary sources
- The article follows patterns of other similar articles- except it is missing a lead and a table of contents
- There are several links to other articles within the article, making it more discoverable
- The article is also missing images and media- this will improve the article and make it more attractive for viewers to read
Overall impressions
[edit]- Good, informative article that is well-written and contains sufficient information on the topic
- Missing is the lead section, the table of contents, and images and media
- A review for grammar would be helpful as I found the word Indigenous to be spelt without a capital
- Use of the term "Indian" was inappropriate and should be changed to Indigenous unless quoting from a secondary source
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?