User:Jezreel.bodley23/Meghalaya/Omehrage 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? Jezreel.bodley23
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Jezreel.bodley23/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, he focuses on the NGO aspect and further describes the civil society organizations. Although I do not know where he will be adding this new topic, I feel as though he has done a great job summarizing the topic at had.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, however, I feel as though he could use a more generalized sentence to describe the society as a whole. For someone who doesn't know about the Meghalaya society, I feel like the intro sentence doesn't give me enough about who they are as a collective population.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes it does!
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * I feel like he does a great job!
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Its concise, I feel like he gets to the point and give a good synopsis of the subject!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * I find the content relevant to the topic, however, there could be more information provided on some of the organizations listed? Maybe listing which organizations relate to what he states in the sandbox, “community building. Examples of such include sports, religious, educational, and other clubs that aim to establish individuals into different social circles based on their interests”  Maybe expanding on sports etc. portion.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes it is!
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No I feel as though everything is there however, there should be more in terms of the examples

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes it seems to be neutral. I especially like when he discusses the scholars and states “them/they.”  I find it important to make sure to frame it from their perspective rather than our own as synthesizers of the material.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No I don't believe so.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Only in regards to the unexplained examples, however, I feel as though each part has enough representation.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No it doesn't seem to.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes it is!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes they do, they are very informative to the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, they are 2016-2018, which is almost current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes they do!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes the content is easy to use and I like the organization as it is a direct lead in to the next topic.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Very minor/minimal.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, I like the breakdown of scholars and NGO to foundations. It gives a good overview of the topic.

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

* Currently there are no images he stated he wanted to use. But maybe a flag/slogan from the community? I think he could add something relevant to the protests etc.


 * 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 a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

This isn't a new article.


 * 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?
 * I like where he’s going with the topic. I think if he expands on the examples and how they impact each other and why they are relevant to the entire topic, may give clarification.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The organization, the topics covered and the scholar portion of the wiki page.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think expanding the topics, flushing out how they all intertwine will help the article cohesively.