User:Suby1234/Kenzi language/Lg720 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Suby1234


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Suby1234/Kenzi language
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Kenzi language

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
The lead is clear, not overly complicated, and includes an introductory sentence that is to the point and concise and reflects the article's topic. There are no major sections to the article yet, but the lead reflects information that can be used to further introduce new sections of the article. The lead doesn't include any information that is not needed in the article, however, there only seems to be one sentence of new content that was added by Suby1234, most of it seems to have already have been written. It would be good if there was more information in the lead, as it is a bit short. Some information that would be good to add would be: when the language was it first identified, why it is endangered, and whether only adults speak it, or if it taught to children or not.

Content
The content is relevant to the topic, and up to date. There is a lot missing content, such as different sections to the article, but the contributor seems to not have not gotten to that part as of yet. The content includes an external link to a YouTube video on how to learn the language, which is very helpful and relevant (however, this was not added by the Suby1234).

Tone and Balance
The sentence that seems to have been added, is neutral, does not state opinions, and is written in a factual, non-persuasive way. The article does not contain any viewpoints yet and only contains facts.

Sources and References
The new sentence written is all backed up by sources. The content accurately reflects what is said in the sources; they reflect the literature on the topic, and are current. A wide variety of author's are used, and all of the links seem to be working. There are definitely more sources that the contributor can be using, as there are only six sources, and a search on google scholar/JSTOR turned up many more useable sources. The sources are formatted correctly, but not all of the sources have links embedded in them. Suby 1234, has also created a separate bibliography pages, but more sources should be added, as there are only four on that page--the contributor seems to have use sources that already existed in the article and should find new ones.

Organization
There is not much new content, but what was already on the page is grammatically correct, and well organized (although there is not that much information to organize, and no sections as of yet, besides for an external links section).

Images and Media
There are no images, but there is a link to a YouTube video, which enhances the understanding of the topic, and adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The Media is organized appealingly, and is easily found under an "External Links" section.

Overall Impression
The information in the article is notable, but the article does not contain a wealth of sources and could use more. It does not link to other sections, and so discoverability is low. The content is neutral and balanced, and the contributor should continue writing in this way. There are no sections, and only a lead that is could use a bit more information. Only a very little bit of new content seems to have been added by the contributor, but it was important and relevant info such as an important statistic on the number of speakers worldwide. It would be better if more information like this could be added by Suby1234.The contributor can also improve the article by adding images, using more resources, and creating subsections for the article. Charts of (as well as sections on) the alphabet/grammar of the language would also be useful. Some additional sections of Culture, and Phonology would also be good.