User:Geec22/Nenets people/Bh597 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) Geec22
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Geec22/Nenets people

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There was no sign of any addition to the Lead. (maybe the first two paragraphs were additions?)
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No lead.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the article shows the real impact on the environment but stays neutral.
 * 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, it makes no note whether or not the author approves of the actions and just states the facts.

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.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There are no links.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? A few sentences were difficult to follow, see talk page.
 * 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? Yes, the article is broken down into easy to read sections with paragraphs that are no overwhelming.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images.
 * 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? Yes, since the Nenets people rely on the condition of the environment greatly, it is important to add this new information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The article gives a better understanding of how the Nenets people are reliant on the land and how the oil industry is hurting them.
 * How can the content added be improved? A few minor edits towards the clarity of a few sentences would improve this article greatly.