User:BSC20/Religious discrimination/AnisaAbdullahi 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)
 * BSC20
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:BSC20/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Their lead is a work in progress and has yet to be written.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, it is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All their content seems to be relevant to the article and nothing seems to be missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, it represents the underrepresented Uyghurs populations of China.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No there are not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No the view points appear balanced as the article is written in one view point.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another?
 * No it does not.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, it is.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they do.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, they are.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, they are.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they work.

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.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

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


 * There are no images.

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, it will, as it adds a new section.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It is new to the article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * It is well written.

Overall evaluation
I found the article to be very well written, it answered who, what, where and etc. it remains neutral and just stuck to the facts.