User:Padleyj/The Red Paper/AmadineB 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? (Padleyj, Keanudickson, Yasmeen.diaz, and Megostrikoff)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: The Red Paper

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

 * The Lead appears to be in the introduction section rather than being presented as a Lead section without a heading.
 * The introductory sentence indicates the topic and originator.
 * The Lead appears to provide information on all of the sections, although it is fairly long.
 * The information in the Lead appears to be present in the rest of the article.
 * The Lead is fairly long and detailed, especially in the section on policy changes, which focuses a lot of attention to the White Paper, perhaps more than necessary.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

 * The content is focused on the topic of the Red Paper and the sections on other topics are relevant in providing the context to the Red Paper.
 * The content added seems to be recent and the article ends with a statement on the aftermath.
 * Most of the content is focused. There is a lot of information on the White Paper, but given the central role of the White Paper to the Red Paper, this may be reasonable.
 * The article deals with Indigenous people, which are an underrepresented population within Canada.

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 content seems neutral in tone providing both sides to the issue.
 * The claims do not seem to be heavily biased.
 * Both the non-Indigenous and government perspectives, as well as the Indigenous perspectives surrounding the paper appear to be included.
 * The content does not attempt to persuade the reader.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

 * There are relatively few citations and they do not seem to follow proper numerical order, such as multiple citations labeled "[1]".
 * The sources seem relatively comprehensive.
 * The sources are current.
 * The sources are written by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous authors, and Indigenous people are historically marginalizes, although much of the presence is from the Red Paper itself.
 * The links work.

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

 * The article is relatively long and could be phrased more clearly and concisely.
 * There are some grammatical difficulties.
 * The content has relevant sections.

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
There are no images.

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

 * There are two secondary sources.
 * There could be other sources on the topic, but some of them are probably not reliable. The article seems to explore the breadth of the paper itself, particularly as it regards the White Paper.
 * There are section headings and such.
 * The article links to other articles.

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
The article is improved, but it could be thoroughly edited for grammatical correctness and conciseness. More citations could be added for the information that is already there. The reference section should be fully numericized based on the citations that are there so that the same numbers are not repeated in the article. This may mean repeating the same information in the footnotes, but footprints should be numerical based on the occurrence in the article. The current structure has the effect of making it seem like there are few citations, or if a researcher is reviewing the citations to find where the source occurs, they may have a hard time. The section on Red Paper provisions should also not repeat the number 1 for both distinct "Immediate Requirements." The Lead section should also be added at the beginning without a heading, so that it is clear that it is the Lead and not merely the first section of the paper.