User:Charleston Baker/Sexual victimization of Native American women/Caquaile 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) Charleston Baker
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Charleston Baker/Sexual victimization of Native American women

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? Yes and no. It breaks down some of the information but a bit more detail about the history and a definition of sexual violence would help to create cohesion and better understanding.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is very concise, though it may be a little too concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes very relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, but I am looking forward to reading the part about history and especially the difference in pre/post colonial era.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Absolutely, and it tackles the issue of MMIW in a very effective manner.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Neutral while also situating the article in a place that does not erase or explain away the unique gendered and racialized violence + trauma indigenous women face.
 * 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? Absolutely, and the compounding information will help to shape the readers understanding, allowing for a more complete processing of how we have gotten to where we are, and just how pervasive and notable the problem is.

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? Current with relevant historical sources being utilized when appropriate
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The reflect a broad range of ideas and sources and the only thing that would really enhance the article would be a perspective a Native American org or survivor if such a source is available and does not contribute to the trauma porn phenomenon.
 * 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? Very well written with strong emotional details that are both relevant and necessary for the article
 * 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? Very well organized going from definition to history to modern reports and finally to relevant links

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? Yes and in a very needed and foundational way.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The resource list is excellent though is could use a shift to some specific indig. orgs or peoples' stories and perspectives.
 * 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? Yes, but adds necessary duality and introspection.
 * 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? Absolutely
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The nuance and summation of foundational reports on the issue
 * How can the content added be improved? A finished history section and indig, voices if possible