User:RussianAnt/Casiguran Dumagat Agta/Jesus051 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User: RussianAnt


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Casiguran Dumagat Agta
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Casiguran Dumagat Agta

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead does indeed include an introductory sentence that is concise and clearly describes the article's topic. In this case, it introduces the Casiguran Dumagat Agta language and that it is an Aeta language coming from the Northern Philippines. The lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead does also include information that is not present in the article since the article doesn't hold much information. The lead section is concise and not overly detailed as well.

Content

All the content added is relevant to the topic and belongs there. The majority of the content is up to date as a whole except possibly one reference. There is some content that is missing, needs to expand more on the major sections and add the information along with the headers. The article does not seem to deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. It does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

The content in the article is neutral and has no bias. There are no claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position. There seems to be no viewpoints that are underrepresented or overrepresented. The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position, as mentioned it is neutral.

Sources and References

For the most part, the sources are fine. The content is indeed backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The content does reflect what the cited sources say to an extent but more content can be added. The sources are thorough and they do reflect the available literature on the topic. The majority of the sources are current except one or two of them. The sources are also written by a pretty diverse spectrum of authors. There are 6 sources and only two have the same author. After some digging, there are a couple more sources that can be added. The links included work well.

Organization

The content added is well written. It is concise, clear, and easy to read. There was only one error in grammar, instead of "was" it should be "were" right before the hyperlink to the third reference. The article doesn't have much but for what it has it's organized. There just needs to be more information added and headers for the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

There are no images added to the article.

Overall Impressions

All in all, there can be more content added to this article. For what it has it's fine but there is room for improvement. The lead is fine and has a nice concise introductory sentence. It includes where the language originates from and how many speakers there are. It's neutral and has no bias so that's good. It just needs a few more sources that are out there and more information to address the major points of the topic. As of now, the article is incomplete but it has potential.