User:Iddibass123/Human rights in the Quran/Dandan619 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) Iddibass123
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Iddibass123/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, edited work branches off the description of the human rights in the Quran.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, direct quotes were used to give reference.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, lists but doesn't describe the rights.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? All information in the lead is elaborated on.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead gives a good overview.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, gives direct quotes explaining rights.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, reference used is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content is correctly displayed in a organized fashion.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Topics are well described and have no equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, not opinionated
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, claims are evenly positioned.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? All points are well described.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, neutral phrasing.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the source is reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the source is a valid website for information.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, source is current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Source is mainly written by a single author but gives good references.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Phrasing is well written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A few punctuations errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images in article.
 * Are images well-captioned? No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images

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, content added give direct quotes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Gives further understanding of the section elaborated on.
 * How can the content added be improved? Phrasing can be improved and there was a punctuation error.