User:SwayamBhatia/Harshad Mehta/Jgoldfiner 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? (provide username) SwayamBhatia
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SwayamBhatia/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? not included
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? n/A
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? N/A

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, he has multiple sources all mainly written past 2000.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It seems very thorough! Nothing seems to be out of place.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it's more of a history.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * None to me!
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Considering it's about a massive scandal, to me I would argue that the article can only be written in a certain light.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Technically yes, but fraud isn't something that can viewed in a positive manner.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * some of them i couldn't access. Some were from a news source, which i know wikipedia advises against.
 * Are the sources current?
 * One is from 1993, but the others are post 2000.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * There's some grammatical errors like at the very end of the sand box, you can see changes is spelled incorrectly.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are grammatical and spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I like the way the sections are divided up.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * Yes, the article at the moment is more so about his life. Now, there is more specific information regarding the scandal that actually made him famous.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The article was lacking for instance how the government changed the financial infrastructure of India after this catastrophe.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The writing itself could be edited and made clearer. Several run on sentences, and grammatical issues.