User:Ozayr2001/Moken/Ozayr2001 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I'm not sure if this is intended but I actually can't see the username of the student that's working on the article.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * This is the only article available for me to peer review.
 * Moken - Wikipedia
 * 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.)

Lead

First off, the first two sentences concisely explains the topic of the article while also being detailed and providing relevant information. It also gives the reader a clear understanding of what makes the topic significant, or more specifically, it establishes a sense of endangerment regarding the Moken people and their lifestyle. In the second paragraph within the lead, there is some unnecessary fluff and a few grammar inaccuracies. For example, it would make more sense to say "The Moken language has 3000 speakers" rather than saying "There are 1500 men and 1500 women and [should be 'that' instead of 'and'] speak the Moken language".

The problem with the last few sentences of the lead is that the tone shifts from something informative and factual to something that feels more like an appeal to emotion. In other words, it feels like an essay which is trying to convince the reader of a problem, contrasting with the first paragraph which gives the facts and lets the reader form their opinion based on the information.

Content

There is a substantial amount of content in the subsections of this article. The sections titles "Nomenclature" and "Way of life" are really solid and consistent in their presentation and content. There isn't too much to say about these portions of the article. However, the succeeding sections can be reevaluated. The section on "Underwater sight" is mostly irrelevant to this article and should be a separate article all together. Additionally, there's no reason to present and explain the research for this topic and you should instead cite the research and present the information as a supplement to another section, if at all. The section on "Government control", while being an important topic that should be presented, is worded in a way that gives the impression of a bias within the writer, be it correct or not. For example, the phrase, "they have historically neglected to register official ownership of the land due to their ignorance of legal protocol" very clearly reveals the viewpoint that the writer is advocating for. Instead, the article should offer the information regarding the governments' relationship to the Moken people in a more neutral tone. Finally, I think that the last section, "2004 Indian ocean tsunami", should be integrated into the "History" section, although the content itself is fine.Tone

There isn't too much that needs to be said here that I haven't previously addressed but to recap, the last few sentences of the introduction along with the section on "Government control" has a tone which seems to persuade the reader against or in favor towards a certain position. Although it is important that this information is not neglected, the tone of the text should always be neutral in nature.

Sources and References

The references within the article seem to be mostly from academic and scholarly sources, although some seem to be news reports as well. Additionally there seem to be a good amount of total sources although the variety of sources don't seem to be evenly distributed within the article. Certain sections, specifically "Way of life" and "Government control" often have long passages without any references, indicating that a bulk of the information comes from a singular source. Of course, it is preferable to have information from multiple sources.

Organization

There are a few organizational tweaks that would make the article more professional. Firstly, the section titled "underwater sight" should be either removed or summarized and integrated into another related section as there isn't much of a reason to have a whole section on it. Secondly, the section on the 2004 tsunami is currently placed awkwardly at the end without much sense of cohesion. My recommendation would be to flesh out the history section and have it in there near the end. There don't seem to be any major grammatical errors but there are some small oddities such as within the phrase "but these efforts have met with limited success" when it should be "but these efforts have been met with limited success".

Image and Media

There are some well placed and relevant maps and pictures of objects within the article. There is certainly room for more pictures and it would enhance the article but there isn't an obvious lack of media either.

Overall Impressions

Overall the content of the article is strong but it could be better if some sections are rewritten/cut. More sources and more references would also really help enhance the article.