User:Na.annamalai/Politics of Tamil Nadu/Sidhu-jas98 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? Na.annamalai
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Na.annamalai/Politics of Tamil Nadu

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No; the lead is very lean as it is.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes but it is circular and adds no new information that previews the article.
 * 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?
 * Too concise

Lead evaluation
I think you should update the lead, unless this format is the convention for other Indian state politics pages.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added gives a more in-depth look to the political scene of Tamil Nadu before Dravidian politics became prevalent by removing the previously incomplete section (that was marked as needing expansion) and replacing it with a much more fleshed out summary that includes information on political leaders post-independence as well as the political parties in play at the time.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * All of the sources used were from the 1970s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Maybe you could add more content regarding the INC's relationship to Tamil Nadu politics outside of the scope of K. Kamaraj. I see that he played a pivotal role in determining the state's politics predating the rise of Dravidian politics, but perhaps a bit more background would be beneficial to your argument.

Content evaluation
The content is overall very strong and a great addition to the article. I suggest writing 2-3 more lines that would round out the addition and give it more perspective.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not really, it was pretty straight-forward and unarguable.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Not that I can tell.

Tone and balance evaluation
I feel your drafting is very balanced by way of it mostly being a historical recollection with not much scope for being misleading/skewed in a certain direction.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the sources are very strong.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Not sure about this due to the self-contained nature of the subtopic you are adding to. See my comments in the Content section.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Both of the sources are quite old (from the 1970s).
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Unsure about whether your sources are completely reflective of the available literature. Since this is not my research, though, I can't really tell. I think this is up to your discretion.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is quite encyclopedic while also being interesting and narrative-like.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes, please make sure your tense is consistent. I don't know if "and/or" is allowed on Wikipedia.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes but consider breaking up your big paragraph into a few smaller ones.

Organization evaluation
Overall the organization is good; just a few tweaks are needed to make it great.

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?

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, definitely, as what was initially there didn't give much useful information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * it went more in depth than what was previously there and was backed up by great sources.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * It can be rounded out with a bit more context.

Overall evaluation
Overall, your drafting is very good. Please see my comments and work on whatever you feel is relevant/necessary to improve. What I have written is just suggestions, so please don't take them as criticism. Good job!