User:Mh1224/Vidunda language/JohnWoods1025 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(mh1224)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Vidunda language


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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, I understand the article's main topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it does not have this component.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * yes, the lead is the only information
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * the lead is concise and paints a good picture of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * There is no content besides the lead.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes the content is added up-to-date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * no, everything fits in the article
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * yes, this language is spoken by an historically underrepresented community.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it is not one sided
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think it is well balanced
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no, it is very neutral

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes, the sources are credible
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * yes, the sources all are cited correctly
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes, the literature is well represented
 * Are the sources current?
 * They are recent, not very current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, they did an excellent job gaining knowledge from a wide array of sources.
 * 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 is not a lot of information on this topic so there are not many better options available.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes it is easy to read
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no, it is well polished
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * no, it does not have additional content.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes, it provides geographical info
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes, I understand them well.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes, they are easily accessible.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * yes, there are 3 very reliable sources
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * it is not entirely exhaustive, which makes it easier to check their work.
 * 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?
 * no
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * yes, it links to an article with more information.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * no, it needs to be completed
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * it is concise and very informative.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * add more information.