User:Geec22/Nenets people/Schoenjr 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? 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?
 * I don't think you've made any changes to the lead yet, so for the most part I'll skip past this.
 * 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
A new lead hasn't been created yet

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, and I like that you're looking at modern intersections between the Nenets and their environment.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * As far as I can tell, yes everything looks to be up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * You mention fishing briefly at the end of the section on how energy companies impact the Nenets people, and I think that could be something interesting to talk about a little more
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, I think your article looks at a large knowledge gap

Content evaluation
So far so good! I think you'll need to expand upon ideas and look for some more sources if possible, but for a draft, you're definitely on the right track.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * I think it's tough to remain truly neutral with topics like this. For what it's worth, this feels about as close to neutral as one could expect
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I think some of the claims in the large paragraph where you talk about the disagreements over land feel biased towards the Nenets people, although trying not to be biased towards them could be really tough. Maybe you could try and find some articles that look at the importance of the land for these energy companies? Honestly, I doubt that would make them look any better, but if you need places to expand upon things, that's always an option.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I kinda talked about this in the above section
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Even if there is some inherent bias in topics like this, your writing doesn't sound like it's trying to persuade someone, which is a very good thing

Tone and balance evaluation
When talking about issues directly related to indigenous peoples, there's no way not to overrepresent and sound a little biased towards that indigenous group, but I think you did a pretty good job of staying impartial.

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?
 * I believe so, although it looks like there are some duplicate sources in the references section
 * Are the sources current?
 * I see articles at least up through 2017, so 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. I think you may have added the sources improperly, not a problem for a draft

Sources and references evaluation
Clean up the references section a little and make sure there are no duplicates. The references themselves seem good, however.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Nope
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, you're focusing on specific problems faced by the Nenets people in recent years, and I think it will work well to balance out the article as a whole.

Organization evaluation
Things look pretty good here. As an expansion on the current environment section in the article, you've added a good chunk but it's still easy to find what you're looking for.

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
Not yet

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, the article is absolutely more complete with additions such as the ones you've made.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * You do a really nice job of taking a lot of information and giving readers the important parts, as a good Wiki article should. Your concise nature makes for an effective article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The only major concerns I had were with the sources and staying impartial, although I can't blame anyone for having some sort of bias toward the people who are having their land taken from them.

Overall evaluation
Great job so far! I really think you're doing a good job of keeping the important information clear and concise. Make sure for the final article you clean up the sources section and add a little to the lead section to reflect your changes. If you needed more information, I would consider looking into the companies using the land in the peninsula, but the article doesn't necessarily need an in depth look at that perspective. Either way, an excellent draft!