User:ThorsTumTum/Seguro Obrero massacre/Aristatertotle Peer Review

General info
(ThorsTumTum)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ThorsTumTum/Seguro_Obrero_massacre?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Seguro Obrero massacre

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?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Content is up-to-date, sources are all relatively recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No content particularly missing, all content present belongs
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does address the nuance of the massacre having authoritative violence which targeted Nazi youths - while the group's beliefs are considered largely objectionable by all orthodox means, such a violent betrayal by the police is worth exploring.


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No claims appear to carry particular bias towards a position or agenda.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There is a balance of viewpoints which are overrepresented and underrepresented; between the spurious actions of the Nazi youths and the police's promise of the preservation of their lives despite the shooting are equally relevant to the discourse surrounding this event.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content is not particularly persuasive.


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Not enough brand new content to thoroughly determine this, although existing sources are relevant to the subject matter and additional sources are present but not yet cited or documented.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources seem to cover a decent amount of ground between their mediums and information coverage.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources vary in recency with a large degree of variance between each of them.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources seem varied in spectrum of author and publication formatting, however I am unsure if they contain particularly marginalized historical peoples - in the case of the Obrero massacre I would have to imagine some of the information regarding the Nazi youths was quite nuanced or controversial but important for the sake of documentation.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The link for the third source provides a 404 error prompt when following the hyperlink.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * This is the only thing that is structurally different; choosing to change the order in which the Background section appears in the article may be of negligible value to the content of the article without more edits being made to the main article.


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I don't entirely understand what the article gains from this core change of organizational structure, but I am sure with more sources and edits that the article can be improved significantly.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Indeterminable at this time
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Indeterminable at this time