User:Petav.Jarl/Parcham/Bgr28 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? (provide username) Petav.Jarl
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Petav.Jarl/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it has but its called background,
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Detailed

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Very much so.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I can tell.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes it does. Parcham is under represented in Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes it is.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I do not think so.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? N/A
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not

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?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Very few
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I believe so.

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?

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 it does
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Very extensive.
 * 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? Yes it does
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes it is.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes i believe it has. Much more in-depth now than the original.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? He has added a lot of new information that was not provided. His sources and research really make this more robust.
 * How can the content added be improved?