User:Jcichoke/Clayoquot protests/Emilyc12345678 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) I'm reviewing Jcichoke's article about Clayoquot protests
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Clayoquot protests

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it has
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead is very clear and gives a well-rounded overview of what is Clayoquot protests are and what gave way to them.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The article is broken down in the contents box
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, it serves as an intro the the article. and the article just expands upon those points
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I would say it's a good lead, it is a good length too

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't know much about the content but everything seems to be in a good overall chronological order
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes it does, it addresses the limiting access of timber resources to indigenous peoples

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, very neutral with no evidence of any bias
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, just a neutral overview of the protests

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most of it is
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Sources are reliable and current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Authors are just from the bibliography so I can't really tell if it's a diverse spectrum?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links do work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, very well written and very detailed
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I can see
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, good chronological order

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I think so?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?