User:Sidhu-jas98/Dalit Buddhist movement/ZuhaSarai Peer Review

Peer review
** THIS PEER REVIEW HAS BEEN MOVED TO SHAWN'S PAGE, UNDER Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

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? Shawn Hua (Shawnhua8888)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Shawnhua8888/Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * As for the lead of this new section Shawn wants to implement, I believe it to be reflective of the new material he will be adding into the Wikipedia article. However, I do feel as though it may be an abrupt intro? I know there shouldn't be an introduction, but one sentence explaining why this is relevant to the topic would be great to tie it in with rest of the article!
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Since this isn't technically a lead, no it does not. But it also should have more of an introducing aspect as it is not merely adding to an existing portion of the wiki article, he is adding a whole new section to an existing article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * His beginning sentence does continue the topic at hand, but could use ore of an introducing element. By this I mean:
 * Maybe stating something like this: " Critics have argued that even though the movement focuses on Dalits, it still lacks enough force to raise the awareness of the general public, alleviate poverty and to make significant transformation of the society."
 * And then expand on those three arguments you have placed?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * he touches on all the topics in his beginning sentence.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content is relevant and has the potential to be detailed for the new perspective he is bringing to the wiki article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I believe it is. The latest date discusses the 2011 census. I would like to see something in regards to whats happening closer to 2019, however, this si pretty up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There seems to be no content missing or out of place.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The tone is neutral, however, due to it being a critique on the movement and how other scholars have critiqued it, it isn't too neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, it seems to be illustrated through the critics perspectives.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I would say that the section as a whole has the opportunity to be represented more than what is written out, as of right now. I like what's written but I feel as though there should be more.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * It doesn't seem to persuade, but it does emphasize an non-neutral topic of criticism.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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?

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?

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?