User:Monkeybomber/Anarcho-Primitivism/Jalapinata 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? Monkeybomber
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Monkeybomber/Anarcho-Primitivism

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does not have a body or "sections" dialog box
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This introduces the info on the topic and the opposing side. Yes, this is historically an underrepresented topic. Reminds me if people who "go off the grid."

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The wording is very pro Anarcho-Primitivism in its wording. This is only because the opposing view was mentioned briefly at the end
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not really, this is a nice intro though.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? This persuades me to want to know more about the topic overall. The wording is very new learner friendly. Not sure if I'd consider that bad.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, EBSCOhost in the bibliography
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, one author is published by Razi University, a public university in Iran.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? They are not hyperlinked

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There are no major sections this is just an intro.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Nope
 * Are images well-captioned? No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No

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? It has three strong sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? This is more of a snippet of the information available.
 * 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? Not yet
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? This article is an introduction to the topic and serves more as a different perspective.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It's introduction friendly and gives readers a craving for more knowledge.
 * How can the content added be improved? Just by adding more organized content and visuals, while, keeping the same tone and reference heavy style.