User:LipstickShtick/Luwati language/Lac414 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

LipstickShtick


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luwati_language
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * The current version of the article is the one that is linked above.

Evaluate the drafted changes
When checking the edit history of the article there doesn't seem to be any changes at all to the article. In fact, it has not been altered since March 2021. If there were any changes there were no obvious ones.

Lead:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

No, it doesn't seem to have been updated since March.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The current lead is quite clear and introduces the topic that is being discussed in the article well.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No, it does not and that needs to be worked on.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No, it only discusses what is in the article itself.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is pretty concise, there doesn't seem to be any excess in detail nor any flower language.

Content:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Because there hasn't been any new additions to the article, I am unable to give any feedback.

Is the content added up-to-date?

Based on the edit history, it seems as though the content is decently up to date.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There are some subsections that are missing from the article such as grammar, history, vocabulary, and others.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Based on what is there so far, it does seem to do that.

Tone and Balance

Is the content added neutral?

Yes, there is no subjective words being used and everything is presented logically.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, there does not seem to be any.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No, there is none.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No.

Sources and References

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

When you click on the references and check the sources, there are more sources in the bottom of the articles that are connected to the topic.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Yes, the sentences on the article do not alter what the cited sources has written.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes they are very thorough and sometimes kind of hard to read because of their length on the subject matter.

Are the sources current?

Yes, there are a few that are current and pretty recent.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized    individuals where possible?

Judging by the names of the individuals who were referenced, most if not seem to be of middle eastern descent. There does not seem to be any diversity.

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.)

There are about 8 references or sources that are on the article already. Most of the available sources that are already on the article are from journals and peer-reviewed articles.

Check a few links. Do they work?

The links do work when I checked on them.

Organization

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

There doesn't seem to be any added content and so it is difficult to say whether or not the new content is well written. However, of what is available thus far, there are no run on sentences and the content flows well from one topic to the next.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No, the grammar and spelling is fine.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, but it is missing some sections and so the article is still kind of empty.

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

There are no images to review.

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?

Overall, there doesn't seem to be many changes, but of what is available to me, the article is nicely organized and formatted. Unfortunately, because there are sections missing, it does not feel complete and so more needs to be added if available.

What are the strengths of the content added?

The strengths of the content so far is that there is no bias, the content is clear and concise and there is no jumbling of topics, and the article itself follows the format expected of a wiki article rather well.

How can the content added be improved?

As of right now, the sections are feeling a little sparse and there are missing sections that need to be added. There is also a lack of pictures and so you should try to add some if possible. Once that is all complete, the article will feel more full and complete.

Good luck!