User:Ecald05/Venezuelan War of Independence/Ovenly Furnace Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: the lead was already good enough to follow up on with for the articles body, however i wish Gual and Espana might have needed to be mentioned in the lead as a follow up
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?:
 * no it does not, however it didn't need to since the articles body is about the conspiracy
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * no it does not, the conspiracy is a different topic all together
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no, the information on the lead helps the readers understand the context of the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * the lead is concise and relevant

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes, it is relevant as it talks about the conspiracy
 * Is the content added up-to-date? due to it being a long time ago, there is no new information about the topic, so you could argue that it is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? it doesn't talk about what happened after the organization phase.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not, Really

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The author clearly tried to make everything as neutral as possible
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? not really, it only includes historically accurate claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? this article only talks about a historical fact, and it doesn't bring extra information that could make you feel it is biased.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? regardless of the intention of the writer, this article talks about the independence of a country, it needs to have some information that could seem as personal biased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes, it has multiple articles that talk about it, in multiple different languages.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) yes it does, User:Ecald05/Venezuelan War of Independence, it helps give some context about key parts of the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes they help us find really important articles about this topic.
 * Are the sources current? no, they are from a long time ago
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No, the sources are written by mostly South American authors
 * 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.) Yes, there are a lot of possible sources for this article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes, it is very well written
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? not it does not
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? it is all in one paragraph, I think the author could've done a better job.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no it doesn't include any images.
 * Are images well-captioned? no
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? yes, it does improve the overall quality of the article
 * What are the strengths of the content added? it gives more context and information about that time in specific.
 * How can the content added be improved? by adding more information to it, more citations and better order.