User:Mobeenb98/Reservation in India/Na.annamalai 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) Mobeenb98
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mobeenb98/sandbox

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 lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer. I think a sentence regarding your addition to critical debates would be helpful and would improve the lead! The lead is relatively concise and doesn't seem to include information that isn't present in the article.

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?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. All the content belongs!

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 content added is neutral—no particular position is being advanced over another. There aren't viewpoints being underrepresented or overrepresented, rather opposing viewpoints are mentioned as part of the debate surrounding the topic!

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The content is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. The sources are mostly current! The links work and reflect available literature on the topic.

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 contend added has no glaring grammatical or spelling errors. It's concise though I'd recommend you take a step back and try to simplify your section. I think you've added a lot of valuable information but the section is packed with information that might be confusing to most readers who aren't as well-read on the subject as you are. Try breaking down your information rich sentences into something more straightforward and easier to understand. I think that'll take your already excellent contribution to the next level!

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
I can see you created a box to add an image! I hope you're able to finish that–otherwise, I'd recommend you delete it so the article doesn't look incomplete.

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
Not applicable.

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 overall quality of the article. Your section is information packed and cites reliable sources—something the article is missing. Like I mentioned earlier, try to simplify your section a bit more to make it easier for most readers who aren't experts in the subject. Great content!