User:Miashang4/Linguistic determinism/Ssmith95 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) Miashang4 and Buffy0123
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Linguistic determinism

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the intro provides a general overview of the topic and the structure of the article, and adds the idea that linguistic determinism is discredited by linguists today.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, though the sentence is long it properly introduces the central idea of the topic and the extensions that pertain to the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes this is done even from the first sentence and then further with the break up sentences into small paragraphs
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, although it is most likely too short to have this problem.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Definitely concise, it introduces the topic clearly using the appropriate amount of explanation needed to do so.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the Deutscher section added provides a good example of a linguist that supports the theory of linguistic determinism and also provides insight into the experiments he used to support the theory. The small addition concerned with Roger Brown's opposition to linguistic determinism is also relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all content added is up-to-date or at least references the dates in which the linguists made their assertions.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The section on Newspeak in George Orwell's 1984 is an interesting example of linguistic determinism in literature, but it may not be as relevant for the educational discussion of the topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, all assertions made in the additions are based on the points made by the linguists themselves and not the opinions of the authors of the article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No not from what I can tell.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There could potentially be more added to the section that deals with opposition to the theory of linguistic determinism.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content added stays neutral and only seeks to introduce the view of the linguists themselves.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The Deutscher section could use more citations to reference specific experiments and their outcomes but other than that it does seem appropriate.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources added pertain directly to the discussion of the topic in this article.
 * Are the sources current? They are from the past but they do reflect some of the more recent work done by linguists with respect to this topic.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all the links provided work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, I find the paragraph written on Deutscher's experiments particularly well written giving a full explanation of his work on the topic of linguistic determinism.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not any that I could identify.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content added is appropriately added within the existing framework of the article.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media They have not added any images or media to the article, however I do not believe it is entirely necessary. Perhaps a picture related to Deutscher's experiment could be useful but other than that I see no need to add any images or media related to their additions to the article.


 * 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? Yes, I believe the revised lead gives a concise overview of the topic and introduces the structure of the article. The paragraph concerned with Deutscher's conclusions on linguistic determinism definitely improve the quality of the article and provide an interesting supporting view for the theory.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The lead revision and Deutscher paragraph do a good job of supplementing the article's main points and add good insight into additional supporting arguments for the theory of linguistic determinism.
 * How can the content added be improved? The additions concerned with the opposing viewpoints to linguistic determinism could potentially be added by finding another source to discuss another linguist's views against the theory, but other than that the added content is well thought out and undoubtedly improves upon the existing article.