User:Janae2002/Anti-Indian Legistlation/Jackemm000 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) User:Janae2002
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Janae2002/Anti-Indian Legislation

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * 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
I think this was good! I like the introduction, it talks about the lead objective for the event they are writing about and it sheds a little light on the topic they are covering. I think it could be more detailed though. I think it would be better if you had just a sentence or more. It could use a sentence about the lead topics throughout the article. That would help it be more organized.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
It still needs some work but its getting there! It needs to have more information in almost all of the paragraphs. Just make sure to cover al you said you would and you should be good.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
I think the balance is good. It looks like right now you have a good amount of facts and your take on all your sources. Just make sure to add everything you said you would.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I think you have good sources you just need more. Just make sure to not accidently plagiarize, every time you use something from an another article or journal cite it. Your links work just fine as well. it looks like your sources are good, there just needs to be more of them.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
I like the way this is organized. it flows together well. I think switching religion and education could be a better fit but that is just a personal preference. I think the spelling and grammar looks pretty good. Just make sure at the end to go over it really well.

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
I like the couple pictures that are there. They look good and ad to the topic of the paragraph. There definitely need to be more though, add them to the paragraphs to give a picture and a visual reference to what you are writing about.

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?

New Article Evaluation
Yes this is supported by reliable sources. I only see 4 right now so make sure to add more and that will help with the credibility of your article. It has good paragraphs and subparagraphs. the links work throughout the article.

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 evaluation
The article is a good start! It is well written and has a lot of potential. There just needs to be more added to the paragraphs and more visual references. It is just incomplete right now. It has a lot of strengths, I like how it is organized and the wording of it. I think it can be improved by adding to it. It is good right now but as you add stuff make sure to double check everything and make sure it make sense and works with the article.