User:Npatel23/Financial Inclusion/Krao01 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? Nirali Patel: npatel23
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Npatel23/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:
''As you are primarily focusing on adding to the article as well as editing pre-existing sections, I don't think this aspect applies to you as much. However, in regards to the first part of your piece, I think you did a strong job in your introduction letting the reader know about the types of financial inclusion but making sure to maintain neutrality by also critiquing the system of financial inclusions as they stand. There's a solid balance between details and large pictures, and overall, turns out to be very strong.''

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:
''Looking at your references, everything seems like it was created in this decade, so that's great, in that all your content is relevant, and up-to-date. I like how you expanded on the information retaining specifically to India, especially adding stances and making it more reflective of the tone of the article. I also appreciate how you made the article more accessible, revising parts that were not using language that was easy to understand or making concepts more complicated than they were. You also made sure to remove information that was not relevant to the main part of the article, which I think made the article easier to read.''

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 tone of the whole article remains neutral and well written. I do think you are taking on a bit of a challenge, adding on a whole section, and to make sure that it says neutral, but I have full faith in you! If your work thus far remains any indication, I think you'll nail it. I think that you are doing a great job of making sure the work remains neutral, and that every viewpoint remains represented. It is defintely difficult to discuss Modi in a neutral manner, but you did well.''

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
''Every link I checked worked! You have heavily cited your piece, showing all the work and research you put into making sure your work is accurate.''

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
''I really like how you went further and organized the specific aspects of the financial inclusion in India, I think the titles are more representative of what the actual sections are about. Everything is spell checked as is.''

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
''A recommendation I'd have is adding more images! I don't know if the page has any originally, but it definitely won't hurt to add some to emphasize your points as they stand. It will also help with the new information you added as well as the accessibility.''

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
''Stunning job! You actually worked on this dilligently and all of your hard work is showing! nice work <3''