User:Joker12346/Crime in India/Oleena.H 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? Joker12346
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Crime in India

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? no but have added a new section that was not in the original article
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes a subtopic that was not covered
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes the content is relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? it was recent content
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? after reading the section fully i believe the writer have covered all content that is needed.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? not that i understood from the paper
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? there were some content that were under presented but the writer had managed to focus on the main points that was most important.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no it was neutral from the start to the end

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes they are
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?yes it is concise and clear to understand and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? there is a bit of grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? it is well organized in a sense that there is a an introduction to which section the writer have added along with body paragraph with scholarly sources to support his point mentioned and a small conclusion that conclude his point(s) along with adding more new information that may lead to the next section in the original article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? the article does include an image.
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes it does
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes it is clear

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? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? the writer added content that was not in the original article which i think is a strength to have found such mistake in an original article.
 * How can the content added be improved? more of the conclusion need work.