User:Oleena.H/Native American feminism/Joker12346 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? (Oleena.H)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Native American feminism

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes there is a lead made by my peer which has added new information about what the original article is about
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes there is an introductory sentence which clearly explains and describes the articles topic
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead has a strong and brief description of the articles major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead includes information which is not present in the article the lead is mainly a summary to all of it
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is pretty concise which explains to the exact detail

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the content added is relevant to the topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes it is
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No there is not content that is missing or content that does not belong

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * That content does not take any point of view or side
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No there are not claims towards a particular position
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No there is not any viewpoints where the peer has provided
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The peer does not provide any persuading information of one position or away from another

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes all new content has been backed up by secondary source of information
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes the source is thorough and they do reflect available literature on the topic
 * Are the sources current?
 * Sources are current but i suggest few of them being a bit to much late 2015
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the link do work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes the content is concise, clear and easy to read
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No there are not any grammatical or spelling error to the work
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes the content is well organized and broken down into paragraphs

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes the article has images
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes they are well captioned
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes they do
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The image is at the right side and left side is all the content that has been added

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?
 * Yes articles does meet Wikipedia requirements
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Yes they do and the article is 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?
 * No the articles does not have any patterns of other similar articles like infoboxes, although there is a section heading for the new content which has been added
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes it is discoverable

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes the content added improved the overall quality of the article
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added the information is much valid to the original article
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * To add sources which are a bit current

Overall evaluation
The overall evaluation of the content is pretty good because there are many section heading which highlight what each section will be talked about.