User:Paigejaru/Cinta Larga/Rgk50 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Paigejaru


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Paigejaru/Cinta Larga


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cinta Larga

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
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? A new lead has been made to reflect the new content added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does 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? The lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections, but does not mention the “Diamond mine controversy” section of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead does include information that is not present in the article, although this information is generic facts about the language that should be included to introduce it,, some information does not appear later on in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is fairly concise, It isn't “overly detailed” as it includes the primary aspects a lead should include about the language such as where it’s from and it’s speakers. It is however missing some information listed in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Some of the content within the History and Diamond mine controversy sections might come across as more directly linked to the people than the language. It might be beneficial to explain more in detail about why these events affected the language.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content seems up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There could be more information about the language itself rather than historical events relating to its speakers.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article does deal with Wikipedia’s equity gaps and underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No claims appear heavily biassed.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There aren’t any viewpoints that stand out as overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? 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? The content appears to be backed up by reliable secondary information sources. I am unfamiliar with Survival International website, but it comes across as fairly reliable.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) The content does reflect the cited sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There could be more thorough sources implemented.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources seem to include information from marginalized individuals, although I cannot say for sure at the depth.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) The websites seem lite fairly good sources, but you might find better use in more descriptive peer reviewed articles  listed in the references, as most of the information within the article seems to come from the websites.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links do work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is fairly well written and readable, but it appears lacking information at times (Language section for example).
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not notice 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? It is broken down into sections effectively, but I think it might be enhanced if you add to the language section, and maybe implement more sections in relation to the history of the actual language.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images.
 * Are images well-captioned?  There are no images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?  There are no images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?  There are no images.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? It does have more than 2-3 secondary sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list of sources exceeds that of information included in the article.
 * 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? It does include headings, a box for contents links and further readings.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? It does link 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? The content does improve to the quality, however more information directly linked to the language might be beneficial.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Good historical information about what happened to the speakers of the language.
 * How can the content added be improved? More insight on the language itself should be included.