User:Little.fishy.123/Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia/AmadineB 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? (Little.fishy.123, AllieFran, Sarahrizvi20)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Little.fishy.123/Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

 * The article and the sandbox are still separate, and the sandbox seems to largely include information stated differently than in the article. The Duty to Consult is mentioned by my peers, whereas the article refers to meaningful consultation.
 * The introductory sense could be more concise and grammatically correct.
 * The Lead appears to include the main sections, but it repeats certain parts of the article and leaves out other parts, so I am not sure how they are planning to incorporate the two.
 * The does not appear to have information not included in the article.
 * The language of the Lead could be more concise, although the content is not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

 * The content added is relevant to the topic.
 * The content is as recent as the case.
 * I am not certain how the information in the sandbox pairs with the existing article, as some of the information in the lead is in both, but not all of it, particularly across the lead.
 * The article addresses Indigenous people, who are a historically underrepresented population.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

 * The article appears to be arguing that the case is significant and providing evidence. It also seems to argue for the importance of recognizing Aboriginal title, which while important, should rather just be a citation that people have found this. It would benefit from more neutral language.
 * The article is written in favour of Indigenous people.
 * Most of the information is from an analysis by Ravina Bains and other sources may be beneficial, particularly more citations of the court case or case briefs on the case to further draw out the facts of the case. Some of this is in the existing article, though, so perhaps my peers intend to add to this. However, there should still be other sources of evaluation.
 * The content attempts to persuade the reader to support Aboriginal rights and title, which while important, does not belong in a Wikipedia article. The sandbox article also attempts to persuade the reader that the case is significant.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

 * Some of the statements seem to be based on persuasive purposes rather than reliable sources of information.
 * There is a wider literature available on the topic, including on the link to the Delgamuukw case referenced in the "see also" of the existing article.
 * The sources are relatively recent, but there are more recent ones.
 * The authors are somewhat diverse.
 * The CanLII Connects link in the references leads to a different case. The "Aboriginal Title" link works. There are no links to other Wikipedia articles.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

 * The article could use some more editing.
 * There are some grammatical errors.
 * The article is reasonably organized, but it is yet to be seen how it will compare with the existing article. It reflects the major points of the topic, although the commentary on the case should be in a separate section rather than in the "Decision of the Supreme Court" section.

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?

Images and media evaluation
There is only an image in the existing article.

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?

New Article Evaluation
It is not a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

 * The content added improves the comprehensiveness of the article, although I am still not sure how the sections, especially the lead match with the existing article.
 * The content added provides a good overview of Aboriginal title, which could be useful to frame the court case, as well as additional background information.
 * The content could be written more neutrally, so that it does not attempt to persuade the reader in any particular direction. The references should also be numbered not bullet-pointed so that they can be connected to the cited material. More of the article should be based on citations and less on independent thought.