User:Kumakaa/Panchayati Raj/Jgoldfiner 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) Kumakaa
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kumakaa/Panchayati Raj

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * not in her draft, but I don't think it is really necessary.
 * 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?
 * Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think it could be overly detailed. Maybe a lot of that info could just be plugged into the history section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all sources are from 2015 and later.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not from my knowledge on the topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Very, nothing is really opinionated.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * One source talks about female marginalization, but I wouldn't assert that as being biased, but just factual.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Maybe there could be more explanation on the empowerment of women part.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * There's content that shows the positives and negatives (increased participation, but also female marginalization)

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All academic journals.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Absolutely.
 * Are the sources current?
 * All written after 2015.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All Work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Very! The topic sentence is a bit wordy!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Nope!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Maybe you could create more sections and extrapolate more.

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?

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?
 * Absolutely, it talks about this system in a modern light.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * the modernity of the information.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * maybe more details in my opinion.