User:TM-307/Contestado War/Aristatertotle Peer Review

General info
(TM-307)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:TM-307/Contestado War
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Contestado War:

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.)


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Content added is relevant to the topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Content added seems appropriate, not particularly dated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Added content seems supplementary, not irrelevant. Additions to José Maria's miracle work adds context to his religious influence.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The content supplemented to discuss the effects of land seizure on farmers seems lucrative to this end.


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Content added consistently uses neutral language.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No heavy bias seems present toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Content added seems to supplement both overrepresented and underrepresented viewpoints; regarding the influence of José Maria, but also the railroad construction and land seizure respectively.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The cadence of the content added is not persuasive in favor of any one particular position or another.


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Supplemented content is backed up by reliable secondary sources adequately compiled in the references list.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Where applicable (citation 3), content accurately reflects the cited source's material.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * All the sources are thoroughly relevant either by directly referring to the Contestado War or relevant peripheral information.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Relatively current, yes, the Diacon sources are dated in the 1990s but this may simply be the nature of sources regarding this subject matter.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The spectrum of authors is not so diverse, but the subject matter drawn upon seems adequately diverse researching the capitalistic and also religious forces driving the conflict. Whether these represented viewpoints are historically marginalized or not is something I am unable to reliably say without further familiarity of the conflict.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Upon searching for articles myself on JSTOR, many - other than the three cited - are either older or less specific in a way that might detract from the process of making additions to this particular article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The available source link to JSTOR is incredibly accessible - the other two sources are only available in ISBN form.


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Content added is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The content added is not grammatically incorrect, but it does contain some minor spelling/grammatical errors like in the first sentence where "is" has an unnecessary capitalization. At the end of the "Railroad" section, there is a grammatical error where "the" appears unnecessary as quoted in "adding the to unrest".
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, content added is organized adequately throughout the article.


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Generally yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Introduces seemingly nuanced viewpoints and ideas which diversifies the narrative structure of the article in favor of inclusivity.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Additional sources for the monks.