User:Taram21/Tomlinson Report/Liliana.Guti 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? Taram21
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Taram21/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Lead evaluation
Yes; the lead has been updated to include the new information. This new version clearly describes the topic at hand and includes the significance of the Tomlinson Report without going too much in depth.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content added is very relevant to the topic. The content added provides the historical background needed to understand the creation of the commission and the push for altering the Native Reserves. The overview of the findings and the information on cost might become more salient if it was explained whether or not the government had the funding or capacity to carry it out. Other than that, the content seems to add more to the discussion.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content that is added maintains a neutral tone and places an even focus on all sections. Both the government, the commission, and opposition, viewpoints are present, although I wonder if it is possible to find more reactions to the report. Overall, the content does not push the reader to take a specific stance, not does it condemn the actions of the people involved.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources seem to come from academic origins, and some are as current as 2014. The links seem to work well.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The added content seems to be well organized, following a chronological structure and also providing subheadings when necessary. It is clearly written and easy to understand; I cannot find any spelling or grammar errors.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?

Overall evaluation
The content added helps to better understand the reasons for the report, the process in which it was created, and the details of the report itself. This has added to the completeness of the article. Expanding its significance, and whether or not it caused other countries to attempt to segregate, or whether or not it can be cited as a part of the growing movement to end segregation, may add to this completeness.