User:Dnh22/Deaf plus/Parisgap Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Dnh22/Deaf plus


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Dnh22/Deaf plus


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
I found this topic and page to be informative, and I learned a lot! Great job :) Here is my feedback:

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead is updated, but at times it reads like a list of facts rather than as a cohesive paragraph. I would suggest variation in sentence length and type to keep the paragraph more interesting to read.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, good intro sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I think the length of the lead is good, but it doesn't really give me a clear idea of what will be covered in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything is covered
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, but reads more as a list of facts than as a paragraph. I think it could benefit from some connecting sentences/phrases, and a stronger concluding sentence

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant. I'm not sure about the Hereditary Syndrome and Maternal Infection lists, as they just contain links to other sources. I think they could benefit from short paragraphs or even sentences offering explanation.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it appears so.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think the page could benefit from some more sections, perhaps highlighting advocacy/policy work for Deaf Plus individuals, or some sort of conclusion. The content now feels like it just offers facts, but doesn't tell a story.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, great job!

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, this seems neutral and balanced.
 * 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

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, good job
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes, the ones I selected were accurate.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, I believe they are thorough
 * Are the sources current? Yes, well done
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Unknown
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) From what I can tell, this is a comprehensive list
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes!