User:Jgoldfiner/Taxation in India/ZuhaSarai 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? I am reviewing Joshua Goldfiner's (Jgoldfiner) work.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jgoldfiner/Taxation in India

Lead
Guiding questions:

** THIS IS ASSUMING WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN IS FOR THE LEAD (EVEN THOUGH I DON'T THINK IT IS)


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the original article is lacking Historical background and information regarding the topic.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * There is already a Lead in the original wiki page and I believe he is not editing this part of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Due to my assumption as to where this paragraph's implementation is, I find it descriptive and informative.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, if this is the lead portion, it contains a lot of information. However, it may be too informative and detailed, which is why I beleive it to be a part of the historical part of the wiki page rather than the Lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overly detailed, but in the original article it is very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Content is relevant to the topic and broadens the scope of how tax evasion historically came about and its consequences.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes it is. he states in his paragraph "today, tax evasion..." expressing how its impact today is enacted.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I personally do not believe so. It would help to understand where this is going? Like if this is a introduction to a section of the article etc?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, except when he stated words like "ridiculously." Charged words, even though it may be the case, cannot be prevalent in the paragraph.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, not at all.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Maybe expanding on the part about "Consequently, as the government tried to combat this extensive issue, the government continued to impose extortionate levels of taxation, only exacerbating the normalcy of tax evasion."
 * It depends on where this paragraph is in the Wikipedia article.
 * He could also link/expand on these concepts:
 * "Taxation Enquiry Commission (1953), Administrative Reforms Commission (1969),and Direct Tax Enquiry Committee (1971)"
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I believe it to be more informative rather than persuading? There are a few parts where I find teh article leaning one way, however, that is a subset of the topic as well.
 * Like when he states:
 * "Unfortunately, it is the honest individuals who are in the salaried class who feel the negative externalities of this situation."
 * Obviously as the reader you are persuaded, but that is also the reality.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, however, adding more sources would be helpful.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes they are reflective of the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, he has two recent and one that is a little older.
 * 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 it is clear and flows well. This may change when I figure out where its supposed to go in the Wikipedia article.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not from what I could tell. I ran it through a grammar checker as well and there were minor errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes it is. It flows from one topic to the next. It is also in a chronological style.

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?

THERE ARE NO IMAGES OR MEDIA.

I do not know of any media that would clarify the topic. I believe graphs supporting some of his claims would give a clearer picture, but that's for more clarity.

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 info boxes, 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 believe the article to be more complete with his synthesis.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content is backed up by an historical and geographical lens.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I believe the parts I highlighted above should have more context. The end of the paragraph seemed rushed. I also feel as though there can be more links to other articles for more clarity (some of the acts that he lists at the end).

Overall evaluation
Good! Minor edits and more clarity for rushed topics, briefly mentioned.