User:Rachelswimmer/Indigenous education/Salliejohnson99 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) Rachelswimmer
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

User:Rachelswimmer/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

no


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, the lead is already well developed


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

yes


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

yes


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The section is sufficiently concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead does not need to be changed from what is currently published in the article

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

"The 1980s were a time of political instability due to a civil war between a Maoist insurgent group and government officials. Indigenous peoples bore the brunt of the negative effects of the violence, which halted any development for indigenous rights." The context/relevance of this section needs to be explained otherwise I would take it out, veering off topic of education.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

The section on Canada doesn't seem entirely relevant to your work, maybe pull a sentence or two from it into another section to give some insight on discrimination against indigenous education in western countries?

Content evaluation
Overall, the content is well developed, but there are a few parts that do not seem as relevant

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Not completely


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Section on Quechua language seems biased in some parts (sentence starting with "These parents.."), it need sources to back the ideas up, and maybe frame them through an objective lens such as "Scholars have noted..."


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Parts of the additions feel like they are advocating for indigenous culture representation (which is a great cause but wikipedia is supposed to be objective). For example, "Policy tends to have a bias against indigenous groups, making getting a job more difficult. This is why it is so important that Quechua be reflected equal to Spanish in law" sounds like you are advocating.

Again, using the phrase, "granting Quechua and Quechua-speakers the rights they deserve" sounds biased.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sort of

Tone and balance evaluation
Double check that all of the information you are adding is 100% objective, you have a few sections where the tone seems more persuasive than neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

A few sentences in your section "Milestones and Setbacks" do not have sources


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes


 * Are the sources current?

Yes


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes

Sources and references evaluation
All of your sources look good, just check that anywhere you are adding new information you are backing it up with a source.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There are a few spelling errors, especially in the "Milestones and setbacks" section, there are also a few instances where I think your word choice could be stronger, eg:

- "those of European descent were seen as also being the official people"

-"therefore parents want their children to have the most opportunity possible"


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

I think your section on indigenous education in Peru would be better framed as a case study than a stand alone section since the article is general in the locations discussed. I'm not sure how relevant the case study you included on Canada is to your research, but your section on Peru could replace it as a better developed example.

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

none added


 * 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?
 * 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?

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?