User:Jakubm1998/Restoule v Canada/Lollins 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) Jakubm1998, AmandineB
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jakubm1998/Restoule v Canada

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes

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? No
 * 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
 * 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? Not really, the primary source is the case itself but this is fair in this particular situation.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Similar to above, the sources are limited but that's is more acceptable when considering the fact that they're just reiterating the facts of a case and that doesn't require more than one or two sources
 * Are the sources current? see above
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? see above
 * Check a few links. Do they work? see above

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? 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? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? No
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Not really
 * 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? yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? not yet but the article seems to be in progress so this could be an upcoming addition

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? the article is very well done considering it's a new article and the group has done a wonderful job of presenting the content in a logical and well thought manner
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is very neutral and fact based
 * How can the content added be improved? at the time i am reading this the article is missing its background and aftermath sections, I think once added this will be a fantastic article

==== Overall evaluation: It's difficult to fully peer-review this article because it is obviously not complete yet, what is published is well-written and concise and the planned additions of background and aftermath have the potential to make this a great article. One suggest would be to tie in more sources if possible especially in the aftermath section just to add to the credentials of the article and viewpoints expressed. ====