User:Rdahl kn/Indian Rights for Indian Women/L.coyes 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? Rdahl kn
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Rdahl kn/Indian Rights for Indian Women

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
It doesn't look like you have a lead yet, the format should be fixed. This should be added a the top before the table of contents.

[Kiana - rdahl kn: I believe this comment is on the sandbox, not the actual article here which was live October 29th.]

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 up to date although the word Indian was used- unless it is being quoted, I propose that the term Indigenous should be used instead

- Relevant content that is up to date and addresses a topic that is related to historically underrepresented populations (Indigenous women).

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 tone of the article is neutral and unbiased

- There does not seem to be any overrepresentation of underrepresentation in viewpoints around the topic.

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
- Most of the content seems to be backed up by sources however some information looks like it should be cited and backed up by a secondary source

- There is a diverse spectrum of authors and sources used

- The links work

- The sources are current

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
- There are a couple of instances where the word Indigenous is not capitalized.

- As well, the term "Indian" is used- while this is the name of the topic, I don't think it is appropriate to use unless quoting. I propose that the term Indigenous should be used instead.

- The content is well organized and broken down into relevant sub sections that all reflect the major points of the subject

- Overall well written with concise language and easy reading

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 included

- Images should be found and added to the article to enhance it

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
- Article is supported by more than 3 reliable secondary sources

- The article follows patterns of other similar articles- except it is missing a lead and a table of contents

- There are several links to other articles within the article, making it more discoverable

- The article is also missing images and media- this will improve the article and make it more attractive for viewers to read

Overall impressions
- Good, informative article that is well-written and contains sufficient information on the topic

- Missing is the lead section, the table of contents, and images and media

- A review for grammar would be helpful as I found the word Indigenous to be spelt without a capital

- Use of the term "Indian" was inappropriate and should be changed to Indigenous unless quoting from a secondary source

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?