User:Rachel Weissfelner/Van der Peet Test/Joeliplakholm Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rachel Weissfelner


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rachel%20Weissfelner/Van_der_Peet_Test?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
- need more sources for some sentences which call on specificities

- maybe go into more examples of the Van der Peet test being used (you hint at it but could be nice to talk about it more)

Content:

- content is relevent to the topic but needs more sources (maybe try adding in a few examples of the test being used outside of EA and within EA)

- content added is up-to-date

- content is relevent - Additional content might be the application of Van der Peet Test and what is means for environmental protection, Indigenous knowledge, etc.

- it does very evidently address equity gaps - as it is dealing and pertaining to Indigenous rights which is typically undermined on wiki

- does the test relate at all to UNDRIP?

- I think some more case studies of it's success or non-success would add to it

- What the test is should be put after the background of who Dorothy is!

- maybe have a history section and how opinions of it have changed over time

- is there specific criteria to be considered?

Tone & Balance

- It is pretty neutral and informative about the topic.

- it does not appear to be bias as the user goes over the pros and cons of the application of the test

- I think the viewpoints are evenly represented - criticisms and controversial opinions are divulged in addition to the pros

- no persuasion (as based on my points above)

Sources & References

- need more references in-text - some statements definitely need a source to back up what you're saying. they seem to reflect the nature of the topic

- Unable to check a few links but I trust you will be good for your references!

Organization

- very well-written and in terms that everyone can understand, it's not inaccessible but also not basic in speech

- grammar and spelling at a glance are good. No sentences are too long. It is concise and succinct

- I think a section should be added before criticisms that goes over "Benefits of the test" before diving in. Because it's kind of jarring going from what the test is to then "this has it's issues"

Images & Media

- no images to examine