User:Rdahl kn/Indian Rights for Indian Women/Taegen e 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, Ryancollins1999, Adev04!
 * Hey, I am not fully sure how this peer-reviewing works, because I think right now I am only commenting on your sandbox work? But, I see that your group added more to the Indian Rights for Indian Women itself, so I will review that article and hopefully you can pass on my review to your group (if I publish this correctly!)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: 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
The lead section is nicely written, included a good snapshot about your topic, covering key dates, people, and importance of the topic. You may want to reword your second last sentence, "IRIW used the voices of many Indigenous women..." as it is somewhat unclear if they aimed to give a voice to those silenced women or were motivated to act by the oppression of Indigenous women's voices. Overall, the lead is well written!

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 relevant to the topic, and I like how you included the broader history for women's rights especially how you nicely related it back to IRIW in the last paragraph of your background section. Your "History of Legislation on Indian Women's Status" gives a nice and not an overly-detailed view of Indigenous women's legal inequalities, with good examples. Your "Founding" section also provides a good overview of the movement's origins, however, the second sentence in your last paragraph is a bit unclear when referring to the Voice of Alberta group, you may want to restate the full group name for clarity. Your "Goals" section is nice, short and clear. For your "Achievements" section, if you have the name, you may want to link the "large conference in Alberta 1978", so readers can find it. Additionally, in the first paragraph of that section, if you could add who exactly was protesting the Bill, if it was all Indigenous people, specifically women, etc. You may want to elaborate or switch the order of your "History of Legislation on Indian Women's Status" and "Background", as the background section seems to provide a more broader overview on women's rights in general than the "History of Legislation on Indian Women's Status".

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 content of the article is presented in a very factual well, without a heavy bias.

In terms of under-representation, I found that the voices of Indigenous men and Indigenous communities as a whole were slightly underrepresented. It would be interesting to see what Indigenous communities with more paternal characteristics though of IRIW, and well as what more maternalistic Indigenous communities thought. I know finding proper sources for this could be difficult, however.

Overall, the article is quite neutral and factual!

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
While the article does seem to be backed by reliable sources, throughout the article, there does seem to be areas which could be linked, such as the "large conference in Alberta" referenced in the "Achievements" section. Overall, however, the sources used are current and relevant to the article. In particular, the sources used highlight the often marginalized voices of Indigenous people in a fair and just way.

I would just recommend going through the article again and see if there are any organizations, people, or events that need links and or citations, but the sources themselves look good!

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
The article is clear, and easy to read. There are a few grammar and punctuation, simple to fix with a few read throughs. Also, be such to standard the use of last names rather than first names, for example, there are sentences in the article that refers to Mary Earley as Mary, then later as just her last name, Earley. I would suggest using people's last names after referring to their full name once. In terms of organization, as mentioned above, I would suggest switching "background" to be before "History of Legislation on Indian Women's status".

Overall, the article is written in an easy to read way, just needs a few more editing checks!

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
N/A

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
For a new article, the content is well sourced with more than two reliable and current independent sources. Good sourcing on a marginalized topic!

The article could use some more links to people, events and organizations mentioned, but had a nice overview of the topic.

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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article provides a easy to read overview of IRIW in Canada, with a good neutral view of the background, successes and challenges of the collective group. The article structure could be reworked to flow better, as well as further edited to fix some small grammar issues. The article uses a variety of sources to highlight the issue and give a voice to the Indigenous women, who are often marginalized.

Good job! Hopefully, you can see my comments :)