User:Na.annamalai/Politics of Tamil Nadu/Ju menendez 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? Aadi (Na.annamalai)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Na.annamalai/Politics of Tamil Nadu; Section titled 'Rise of Dravidian politics'

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Not really, it practically just repeats the title. Not informative.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No. There is only one sentence. Lead could be more informative and revealing of the article's subheadings/content.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Just one sentence; quite limited.

Lead evaluation
Lead is very limited and does not anticipate the article's content. It practically just repeats the title of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. Very strong and concise background on the history (and rise) of Dravidian politics.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. You properly trace the history of Dravidian politics, beginning from 1916, until 2016. Has there been any updates since 2016? Where do the DMK/AIADMK parties stand today?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I had a question, in the first paragraph of what you added, you mention the South Indian Welfare Association, which came to be known as the Justice Party, which was then renamed to Dravidar Kazhagam. Is there a reason why it was renamed? Did the name change have to do with the demand for the establishment of an independent state of the same name, Dravida Nadu? You introduce so many names, so its easy to get a little lost. It could be helpful to elaborate briefly on why the name changes.
 * Another thing that tripped me up a little is the opening sentence of the first paragraph, where you write: "Dravidian parties have dominated state politics since 1967." But then you follow this sentence by jumping to year 1916. I think the introductory sentence is good since it reveals the importance of having a section for Dravidian politics, but I suggest including a smoother transition from the first sentence to the rest of the paragraph since it is not chronological.

Content evaluation
Overall great job, strong content, but I have a few suggestions (as noted above) just to help clarify and make the reading smoother and easier.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * 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
I think your wiki-language is very good. I don't see bias or over/under-representation. Everything is very brief, concise, and to the point. Very good job!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * 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
You are missing sources! (!!) This is very important! Remember to cite the source for every new information you introduce!

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
Very good use of language; it is unbiased, clear and concise! The chronological organization of the content is also very strong and easy to read. Good job!

It was just a little hard for me to follow since it kept introducing a lot of names/concepts that I had never heard before, but I think that is simply because I am not knowledgeable in this topic. As long as you link up the names of the political leaders/parties to their corresponding wiki page it should be good.

Second paragraph is especially strong. Very well organized, moves along with a historical timeline, focusing on transition of leaders. Good wikipedia language. Straight-Forward, informative, and unbiased.

I would suggest smoothening transition between the paragraphs, and also between some sentences (like the first sentence in the 1st paragraph).

Lastly, I found your last sentence to be a little rushed and confusing: "Governments were formed by: DMK in 1989, AIADMK in 1991, DMK alliance in 1996, AIADMK alliance in 2001, DMK alliance in 2006 and AIADMK alliance consecutively in 2011 and 2016."

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
N/A

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
N/A

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
Overall very strong content added. Great wiki-language, and chronological order makes it very clear to follow.

I would suggest going over and adding smoother transitions, and addressing some of the conent-related questions I have included in this peer review.

If possible, I would also suggest you add more content to the lead, as this section is very much lacking any info.

Very important content-Great contribution :)