User:Nelson.bassett1/Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami/Mackenzie422poli 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) alisyed25, Madison goulding, nelson.basset1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes it has
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? the intro is very brief and does not describe the main parts of the paper.
 * 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 it doesn't
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it is incredibly short

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes it is
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't believe so
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Inuit peoples are historically underrepresented so yes

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes it is
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? not at all
 * 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 at all

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * 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
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes they do

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes I think so
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? not that I notices
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? its broken down quite well.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes it does
 * Are images well-captioned? yes they are
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? from what I can see yes, however I do find the regulations slightly confusing
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? very much so

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
=== Overall impressions - I think you guys did a really good job, I think under the Tagak Curley I think you should spell out ITK, and maybe how he was involved in the foundation in that section. In the foundation section maybe mention why they were in Toronto, to give more context, like what the meeting they were attending because its not totally clear. The biggest thing I found was how short the intro was, I think you should mention a bit more information and maybe include each of the sections that you talk about in the article in the intro. I really thought a big strength was the goals section, instead of just stating what they do you explained their goals which is awesome. However maybe including how their going to try to preserve Inuit languages would be a good addition. ===

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?