User:Juliaa.bibik/Surui language/IqraSajjad1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) Juliaa.bibik


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Juliaa.bibik/Surui language


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Surui language

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

 * Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, a history section was added and the lead was also updated to reflect this new section.
 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it entails what kind of language it is and where it is from.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, there's a sentence or two about the History section in the lead.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, there's a lot of information discussed in the lead that isn't mentioned again in the article. Adding more sections to discuss this information in details could resolve this problem.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's informative but I think organizing the information could make it feel more concise.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all the information discussed relates to the Surui language.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Somewhat, there's some sources dated from 2011 while other are more recent. Adding more information from the recent sources would be a good idea.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No all the content is related to the topic of the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Since, it discusses an endangered language it possibly can be related to an underrepresented population.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article from a neutral point of view?
 * Yes, there are no opinions in the article so it's from a neutral point of view.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, all the claims are factual so they don't take a particular standpoint.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, there are none.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Yes, the information is based on facts rather than opinion.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, there is no persuasion occurring.

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are no number citation in the article to ensure that all the information is backed up by a reliable source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Somewhat, they date from 2011-2020.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, all the sources are by different authors making it a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * All the scholarly articles that can be easily found are cited.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work.

Organization and writing quality

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, but it could be more organized specifically the lead.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes, some commas are missing.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, but more sections need to be made.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are no images
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are no images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There are no images

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, there is more information now.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It discusses different things relevant to the topic which weren't mention in the original article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Make it more organized, fix sentence structure, add more information and sections