User:SwayamBhatia/Harshad Mehta/Shawnhua8888 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) Swayam Bhatia
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? the lead is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? it is relevant, since the 1992 scam is very related to Harshad Mehta
 * Is the content added up-to-date? it is up-to-date, even though the event happened in 1992.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No content is missing, and the description of the event is very comprehensive.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? It is very neutral and free of personal opinions.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, all the viewpoints are represented equally.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, almost each sentence is backed up with credible sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I did not look much into the sources, but they should be pretty thorough.
 * Are the sources current? The published time of the sources vary, but most of them are from late 1990s to early 2000s. Given that the event happened in 1992, the sources are current.
 * 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? Yes, the content is very concise. However, it assumes that the readers have some knowledge in economics and financial market.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the content is very 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 image.
 * Are images well-captioned? No image.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no image.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no image.

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?

==== Hi Swayam, I really like the article you wrote. It is very clear, concise and objective narrative. You also made very good use of the sources. However, since the article you are updating is about Harshad Mehta, maybe you talked a bit too much about the 1992 scam itself. Maybe you could focus more on Mehta's role in the event, instead of the event's impact on the Indian economy and financial market. Also, I noticed that in the original Harshad Mehta article there is already a description about the 1992 scam, and there are some overlaps between your article and that article. Do you plan to replace the original section with your article, or just update the original section? But overall you did a great job. ====