User:Stillwatersigner/Language deprivation in deaf and hard of hearing children/Mfs2162 Peer Review

Peer review
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? stillwatersigner
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Stillwatersigner/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - Yes, there is discussion of European cases of language deprivaton (Victor)
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - No - Although the information is good, based on the introductory statement I wouldn't understand what language deprivation is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - Not yet, but it does provide an overview of the article in general.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - Yes, but it appears that this information will be added later based on the draft.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - The lead seems to have extraneous details like communication modalities but it does not look like that will be a new section that is included.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, the new content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - The citation I saw was from 2017 so yes, the content added appears to be up to date. However, it is important to find more information as well and ensure that it is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - No, the content that is there reflects what should be included in the edited article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Yes, this article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes, added content has a neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No, there does not appear to be any claims that are biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - Yes, there are viewpoints included that are underrepresented on Wikipedia.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No, the new content does not appear to favor one position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - No, but it appears that there will be new information forthcoming.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - No, but I believe that there will be more sources coming to support the information being added.
 * Are the sources current? - Yes, the sources that are in the sandbox right now are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - There is only one source added and I don't believe that these authors are historically marginalized.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - No new links added.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - The content is provided in an outline and is easy to understand what the intention is.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - The draft in the sandbox is an outline so any spelling or grammatical errors aren't important.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, the content is well organized.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - No, but I also don't think this is necessary to include images to represent language deprivation.
 * Are images well-captioned? - N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? - N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - N/A

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?