User:Gnando/Vorkutlag/Jcw379 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Guy Fernando's contributions to the Vorkutlag Wikipedia page.


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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, more concise than current page's Lead, but needs citations
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, much more concise and easy to read than current intro sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, briefly goes over the history and other points further addressed later in page
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, includes when and why gulag closed, the "Special Camp", etc.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * In my opinion, the proposed lead could be slimmed down or split into 2 paragraphs

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Added content, especially the added section of the 1942 uprising and Rechlag, is relevant to the history of the gulag.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Photos assumed to be later added

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No. For example, the claim of the Rechlag used to dehumanize and further punish prisoners designated as particularly dangerous is justified and necessary
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * If possible, notable inmates section should not just include American servicemen
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * As far as I can tell from biblio yes, but citations are needed on actual page
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, potentially too much so, all sources from 21st century
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, slave labor perspective of prisoners included

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * For the most part yes, but as a rough draft a couple organizational revisions could be made (i.e. aforementioned suggestion on Lead's structure)
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None as far as I can tell
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Sections well done, WWII section may benefit from being added on to/changed to subsection of history.

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

Images/Media needed


 * 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?

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Overall, I believe the draft adds onto the already strong current Wiki page. As a draft, however, there are certain additions, structural changes and more that need to be added in order to surpass the quality of the current page up now.