User:Digit2334/Violence against indigenous women (colonial to present United States)/Gabby223 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)
 * Digit2334
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Draft:Violence against indigenous women (colonial to present United States)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead section is strong and gives the pertinent background information in a concise manner that lets the reader know what is coming and guide their attention.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to the topic and appears to be up to date. There might be areas that may benefit from more information. Since this article is relatively small, it might be better to add more detail into the main sections that talk about the types of violence. Also, this article does deal with a historically underrepresented population as it speaks on Indigenous women.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is neutral for the most part and does not seem to be biased. There is a bit of persuasion in the first few sections where the author is trying to draw a connection between colonial oppression and modern violence against Indigenous women.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
There seems to be a good amount of sources and the links seem to be functional. There are some facts or claims without in text citations though. Additionally, it seems like there is a bibliography with more sources than are cited in the references and throughout the article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is concise and easy to follow. Despite the few minor spelling and grammatical errors, the article is written in a clear and organized way. The way it is structured is helpful because it moves chronologically and gives the pertinent background information first.

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?

Images and media evaluation
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?
 * 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?

New Article Evaluation
I think this article meets the requirements for Notability, and I think the topic is interesting and would be a good addition to Wikipedia. I'm not sure how much information exists on this topic, but I think the list of sources could be expanded. The article does link to a few others, so it would be discoverable.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I think this is a good start to this article! The topic itself is very interesting and a important topic to learn about. The writing is clear and easy to understand which I think is one of the biggest strengths of this article. Something I would suggest is possibly going a bit deeper and adding some more information to the sections that carry the bulk of the article.