User:Conner.hobson/Naxalite/Sidhu-jas98 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? Conner.hobson
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Conner.hobson/Naxalite

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No
 * 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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * A little detailed but necessary for a dense topic like this.

Lead evaluation
You left the lead untouched — I think the article would benefit from you adding something in the lead related to the section you added.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added gives a new dimension to the article which until the addition only covered basic history.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content added is fairly up to date with sources ranging between 2010 and 2018.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I feel the content that was missing was the content that you added.
 * I feel the content that was missing was the content that you added.

Content evaluation
The content added was very relevant to the topic and I liked how you discussed the pseudo-symbiosis between tribal communities and Naxalite groups.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Might be a little unbalanced toward the Indian government (first 2 sentences). Consider restructuring to balance tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I don't think there are any big claims that appear to be biased, but I think the presentation of facts might be a bit unbalanced as the Naxalite movement is complex and not clearly cut re: who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The pro-Naxalite position is slightly overrepresented, but I like what you said in your last sentence.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, not particularly.

Tone and balance evaluation
The additions are balanced in content but consider tweaking the tone a bit to make it more neutral overall.

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 — Mostly between 2010 and 2018.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes!

Sources and references evaluation
The references are very strong. No further comments needed.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, I feel the content summarizes the sub-issue in a way that is not too long winded but still very informative.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I can see!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, as there is only one section being added and one paragraph within the section,

Organization evaluation
The organization of this addition is fairly straightforward as it is simply a section addition to an already short article.

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


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

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 is definitely made more complete with the addition of your section.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added gives the reader an idea of how the overall Naxalite movement affects and entices tribal communities who feel neglected or attacked by the state. It shows a way in which the Naxalite movement has gained authority in parts of India that have been effectively left behind by the Indian government.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think the content added can be improved by maybe adding some figures/statistics and images that could give the reader a richer experience in trying to learn about this subtopic. I also think there is more to say about the Naxal presence in tribal communities — maybe you should talk about Newton or related media.

Overall evaluation
I think the addition you made is very strong to the article itself, but if you were to develop it a bit more, it could be an invaluable component of the article that stands out amongst the other sections.