User:Cedarwood79/Immigration to Peru/Pen2531 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? Cedarwood79
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Immigration to Peru

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No. Does not talk about citizenship and the Visa process or past and post colonization.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No. It restates the article's name without describing the content of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No. The lead discusses the geography and first settlers only.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. Talks about the settlement of Peru instead of immigration.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead does not talk about Immigration to Peru or the contents of the article. The Lead mentions other topics.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. Would get rid of information under "Post Colonial Patterns" that starts talking about migrants leaving Peru.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes information about migrants leaving Peru.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Mostly. Biased words including "entirely" or "most" should be removed as they are not neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * 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? Mostly.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, at least in the last 10 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

==== Sources and references evaluation-Some sources I don't believe follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Including using another encyclopedia and the "LimeEasy" site that appears to be a blog that does not cite any sources. ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Somewhat. Confusing wording in the Lead especially the second sentence. Lists mentioned are not concise and too long. Would recommend mentioning no more than 4 countries in any given sentence.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes. Double Spaces and a repeated sentence at the end of the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Somewhat. Would edit section names as they are a bit confusing or the information provided do not completely reflect the title or "immigrating to Peru." Would make a "history of immigration" section and a section about predictions of immigration if credible information can be found.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media No


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * 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? The article has improved but also needs improvement.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The visa section is well thought of.
 * How can the content added be improved? Reviewing wording and making sure information does not stray off topic.