User:Oliver darmody/Anarchism in Mexico/Jlbettis Peer Review

Lead

 * The Lead has been updated to reflect the new content.
 * I believe the first sentence is a good summery of the author's addition, however, I wonder if the paragraph as a whole could be simplified into fewer sentences.
 * I feel that the Lead could be more brief as I noticed it is longer than the content being added. In addition, the Lead already published in the article is already rather brief and I wonder if the addition of so detailed a Lead might confuse the reader as to the main topic of the article. Namely, that the article is about anarchism as a whole and only partly about the punk subcultures.
 * The Lead does include information that is not present in the article.
 * The Lead seems overly detailed. I wonder if it could be boiled down to 1-2 sentences.

Content

 * The content seems relevant to the topic. This is especially evident in the sentence "They are profoundly anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist and view the Mexican government’s tactics of control to be particularly repressive"
 * Most of the sources used are very new and i do not think the older one will have a negative impact on the quality of the information when it comes to this topic.
 * I feel like the content presented in the Lead is not clearly discussed in the main body of your addition. Namely, I was looking for more content on the subcultures participation in protest and relations with other subcultures.
 * This is referencing a niche subculture in Mexico and therefore seems to be representing these underrepresented groups.

Tone and Balance

 * The Content seems neutral and does not take a position on the controversial group.
 * The strongest claim I could find was when you said, "Anorchopunks are known for being the most politically active and motivated subsect of the punk scene, and these politics are a core part of their identity." I see that you cited a source for this claim but I wonder if it's bias at all.
 * There could be more mention of what or who the group was fighting against.
 * I do not think the article is trying to sway opinions.

Sources and References

 * yes, every sentence has a source linked with it.
 * I cannot check this as I can't access the source materials at this time.
 * I cannot check this as I can't access the source materials at this time.
 * The sources appear mostly current and I do not think the age of the one will negatively impact the article.
 * Looking at the authors' names, I do think there is a variety of people from differing backgrounds.
 * The Link for "Love and Rage" wasn't working for me.

Organization

 * There was little consistency with the spelling of words like "Anorcho-punks" which was sometimes spelt with a hyphen and sometimes without.
 * My spellcheck is highlighting a few words so it could be a good idea to double check spelling.
 * The content seems well organized

Overall Impressions

 * I think this adds more to the article in so far as it adds to the discussion of punk anarchists.
 * The content is enticing and interesting as it discusses a topic that might bring a reader in.
 * I think some re-organization might benefit your addition, namely, moving some of the content from the lead into your actual paragraph addition.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)