User:Grackle.cackle/Protracted social conflict/Chase2424 Peer Review

General info
Grackle.cackle
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Grackle.cackle/Protracted social conflict
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Protracted social conflict

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The new content appears in the sandbox version of the Lead
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, not much is changed in the lead except for an additional sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the Lead does not include a brief description of the major sections
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise and not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant and makes for an interesting read
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the updated examples area of protracted social conflict provides current issues
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is some content missing. It is mainly material that needs to be filled in under the examples of protracted social conflicts.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I believe that in a way this article update addresses underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * In general the content appears to be neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * It doesn't appear so. I am not very familiar with some of the conflicts so I can't say if there is a bias or not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * The author made a note that they weren't able to transfer secondary source citations with the copy and paste. They also said that they need to add their own citations for their work. I can't confirm this question.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * It wasn't possible to check because the sources are behind a paywall.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I can't answer this question in the current state of the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * I can't answer this question.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I don't have an answer for this question.
 * 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.)
 * Almost all of the articles cited are peer-reviewed journal articles. I don't think different sources are needed. However, sources should not be behind a paywall.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links did work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the added content is well-written and does contribute to the article.
 * 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

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?

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?
 * The article does seem more complete with the added material.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The added examples provide more material to consider and are relevant in that they apply to current conflicts.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Add citations