User:Adrumma/La Violencia/Reynard2077 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

 * Authorof Article: Adrumma
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: La Violencia

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Content
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? Yes, there is large section on conspiracy theories spread during the conflict that seem unnecessary and out of place. If they are especially important to the conflict, I would like to see an explanation.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. Author retains a neutral tone.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
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? yes (academic papers, books, government documents)
 * Are the sources current? Yes (some appear to be older/from around the event itself, but this does not seem to be an issue)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
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? No. user made good efforts to present polished draft for review.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Article structure has been improved with better coverage of events in the conflict.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes,
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes (credited source).
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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?
 * 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? Yes. The Author expanded the most lacking section that also happens to be the most important tot he article topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Strong use of details in La Violencia (as opposed to sweeping, non-specific generalizations).
 * How can the content added be improved? The "timeline" section should be renamed, or edited to make the time-relationship of events more apparent. Sub-section headings could work, or dividing paragraphs up more.
 * Overall evaluation: Strong additions to the "timeline"/events section. Organization could be improved, and the conspiracy information seems too prominent relative to the rest of the articles information with little explanation for it's prominence. Perhaps the "Historical Interpretations" section could be updated with more discussion on the development of modern Columbia (which is suggested in the article but minimally discussed).