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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, the lead has not been updated; however, the lead does not need to be updated as it already reflects this indiviudal's additions.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead section contains a Content Index, but does not highlight the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, very well done.
 * 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, the individuals additions highlight the current under-reported termoil of Uyghurs in China.

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? Mexico's section is underdeveloped.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it raises attention whilst stating facts.

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.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, relatively.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, multiple sources are presented.
 * 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 grammatical errors. A few edits to be even more concise, however, could taken.
 * 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


 * 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

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, offered a new section.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Provides information on a section that was not prevoiusly added in the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? This peer review focused on the sections of Religous Descrimination and did not focus on Inimate Partner Sexual Violence. Although the majority of her work was added to the prior, further developments could have been added to the latter. I do, however, recognize that only 500 words were needed. Overall, well done, Peer!