User:SallyJohnson12/Ethnic Violence in Afghanistan/Jcichoke Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

SallyJohnson12


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Ethnic violence in Afghanistan
 * Ethnic violence in Afghanistan

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

Guiding questions:


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

Yes, the lead is updated and reflects the new content.


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

Yes, the lead’s intro sentence is concise, and describes the article’s purpose as well.


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

Yes, it does a good job outlining the major sections.


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

No, the lead does a good job of including all of the info present in the article, but not more.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It is very concise which makes it helpful to know the purpose of the article.

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, the content is up to date.


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

No, it is all very relevant but not overly descriptive outside the article main’s purpose. The timeline is very helpful and includes all relevant info.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, the article deals with violence to certain ethnic groups in Afghanistan. This topic has been under-researched, so the article is very important.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes, the content is neutral and does not have a specific viewpoint.


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

No, the article seems to be very objective and I do not see any instances of bias.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No.


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

No, it is not persuausive.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


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

Yes, the sources all are reliable.


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Yes, after checking the sources it appears that the author did not take quotes out of context and used them accurately


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

Yes, the sources are very thorough and are from academic journals, NGO releases, and recent articles.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes the sources are current, and reflect recent development.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes the sources do both of these things.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Not that I could find, the author did a good job researching.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, the links work.

Organization

Guiding questions:


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

Yes, the content is concise and easy to read.


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

No. the content is grammatically correct.


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

Yes, the content is very well organized.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

Yes, the article is supported by reliable secondary sources.


 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

It appears to be very exhaustive and reflects much of the available literature


 * 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?

Yes, it does a good job of this.


 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Yes, the article link to other articles.

Overall impressions

Overall, the article was concise, efficient, and researched very well. I thought it was very informative and helped to understand the issue very well. The timeline helped to understand the development and instances of violence. The sources were also very reliable and current.

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

The article is definitely more complete and was informative on many of the relevant issues.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

The information is widely researched and very current. It is also laid out in a manner that makes sense, and is chronological.


 * How can the content added be improved?

Perhaps the lead section could be lengthened a bit, but besides that the article looks great. Good job!