User:Sheila Prestupa/Cultural amalgamation/LouBelchera Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer Reviewing a Wikipedia Article: “Cultural Amalgamation”

Lead

Sheila has added a little bit of content to the lead section. Most of the edits involve adding citations and reorganizing sentences. The lead section includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article’s topic. Sheila has not divided the article into major sections yet. Overall, the lead section needs more information.

Content

The new content is relevant to the article’s topic. Sheila discussed cultural amalgamation as it relates to other processes such as acculturation, assimilation, and melting pot theory. The additional information is up to date. All of the sources were published in the 21st century. Each claim has a citation. There is a lot of missing content. The new information discusses a few of Wikipedia’s equity gaps. Sheila incorporated content that pertains to Indigenous peoples, European settlers, and immigrants.

Tone and Balance

The added content has a neutral tone. It is not biased towards a particular stance. The new information provides several viewpoints on the topic, but it still requires more diverse perspectives. The added content does not try to persuade the reader in favour of one position over another.

Sources and References

The new information is backed up by reliable secondary sources. Sheila cited books and open educational resources. By and large, the added content accurately reflects the cited sources. There is one problem. One of the citations (i.e., #11) links to a source that does not mention cultural amalgamation. The reference section contains a variety of sources, but it is not an exhaustive list. There is more literature available. All of the sources are current. The oldest reference was published in 2001 while the newest reference was published in 2022. Most of the sources were written by males. There are better sources available. I suggest browsing journal databases for peer-reviewed articles. All of the reference links work.

Organization

The additional information is well-written. There is one spelling error (i.e., sentence #2 uses ‘then’ instead of ‘than’). The new content does not have any grammatical issues. Sheila has not broken down the article into major sections yet.

Images and Media

Sheila has not added any images or media to the article. I recommend searching the internet for copyright free images and media that are relevant to cultural amalgamation.

Overall Impressions

I notice some weaknesses. Sheila has contributed very little information to the article so far. The reference list needs more reliable and diverse sources. There are no images or media. As a result, the article is still underdeveloped. I see many strengths. The new content has improved the article’s readability and notability. It is easy to comprehend. All of the claims are properly cited. I believe Sheila is off to a good start. My main concern is the lack of information and pictures. Once there is additional content, Sheila can divide the article into appropriate sections.