User:AbigailStern0702/Sephardic Judaism in the Soviet Union/PurpleHaze2022 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Abigailstern0702
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AbigailStern0702/Sephardic Judaism in the Soviet Union

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Needs no update.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The introductory sentence adequately preludes the coming information.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Nothing added is irrelevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, as far as the the equity gap the topic represents a population previously not recognized in detail.

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?
 * 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?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Very well written even for the density of the subject.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Spelling errors no, but there are a few sentences or areas that could be changed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Well organized and topically sound.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images, but I believe they are coming.
 * Are images well-captioned? see above
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? see above
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? see above

For New Articles Only
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? It is notable.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? A fair amount of sources for the length and depth of article.
 * 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? I believe so.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is fairly complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved? Add the images and tighten up the writing and this article is more than publishable.

Overall evaluation:
Well written with depth and a clear knowledge of the subject. Not opinionated and fairly objective.