User:Rdahl kn/Indian Rights for Indian Women/Yasmeen.diaz Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Assigned to: Rdahl kn, Ryancollins1999, Adev04!
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Indian Rights for Indian Women

Lead
Guiding questions:

The lead of this paper is well written, with a clear introductory sentence that allows the reader to know what the paper is about. The lead does not however give the clearest breakdown of the sections to follow, however based on the contents of the article it alludes to some of the ideas presented in the remainder of the article. The lead remains consistent in that all the points mentioned in the lead are brought up later in the paper including the names of some of the key activists and the introduction of BILL C-13. Overall the lead is concise and easy to navigate, however lacks slight formality in it's wording for the beginning of an article.

Content
Guiding questions:

Overall, the content of the article is quite relevant to the topic. I would argue that the content between the History and Background Sections are slightly redundant. This section holds great strength in dealing with the concept of equity, as it clearly addresses topics related to the historical under representation of Indian Women. In terms of improvement, I would suggest to revise or remove the last part of the section "Challenges" regarding funding. The section remains focused until the end where it is mentioned that funding was in jeopardy. To provide a suggestion I would say to re-write this section to provide more clarity as to why the funding was not "handled well". However to contrast, the Achievement and Outcomes sections of the article are well written in regards to mentioning the passing of Bill C-13. I would challenge the authors of this article to elaborate more on the current state of Indian Rights for Indian Women and Bill C-13 as of current date, as the paper only leads readers to decisions made in 1985.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

For the most part, the tone of the article remains consistent despite being written by several offers so well done. I would suggest some revisions to the Challenges portion of the article. I completely understand the difficulty of avoiding bias in an academic article such as this, but I would caution this group with using generalizing statements in this section without further explanation, or else this section can come across as biased. However, I would not say that the article persuades readers to lean one way in favour of another so well done. Lastly, I would caution this group to not place too much emphasis on the Background and History sections of the article above the Goals, Achievements, and Outcomes Sections as readers are equally as interested in both past and present facts of this topic. Keep up the good work!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

The use of sources in this paper is well done, with a clear balance of citation throughout the paper. The sources are thorough, providing primary and secondary sources of information. While the sources are not the most current, I believe that the sources reflect well on the content provided. I also believe the sources reflect marginalized voices well. Also, all the links provided do work. I have little to recommend in terms of revision for this section.

Organization
Guiding questions:

In terms of the organization of the paper, the article is well-written in that is concise and easy to read. There are occasional grammatical errors, but with a proofread these should be easily remedied. However, my biggest recommendation comes the academic language of the paper. I would avoid the use of simple language like "Some felt as though... " or "Lots thought that..." - My question to you is, who are these people you are referring to? Simple language runs the risk of appearing unclear, but this is an easy fix! Also this will make the paper more engaging to read! The organization of the content is well done, with different sections clearly breaking down the major points of the topic.

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

As of images or media, the article does not include any as of yet. I don't personally feel this takes away from the article, however I would say that if it is possible to find pictures of some of the main contributors and or/signing of Bill C-13 that might add to the appeal of the paper!

For New Articles Only
In terms of Notability, this article is very well sourced. You can tell the contributors took a lot of time and effort to research for their topic and because it is a more general topic, kudos to this group! The list of sources is exhaustive, pulling from official legal documents as well as several academic journals. I personally feel as though the subheadings are successful in this article, however the article could go one step further to include smaller sub-sections that make some of the distinct findings of the article more clear. This paper is also very successful at listing several other articles within the writing through hyperlinks for easy access.

Overall impressions
Greatest strength: This article is very successful at employing a large amount of sources into a synthesis that is clear and understandable to the reader. This article is also successful at taking the time to explain certain outcomes that have come from Indian Rights for Indian Women in Canada.

Greatest area of opportunity: I believe this article has room to grow in both the expansion of ideas presented as well as the formal language of the paper. Where this is successful in some areas it is weaker without, and overall I believe greater work on the language of the paper will make the article more cohesive!

Well done team! Great work!

Overall evaluation
78% - 80%