User:Ucalpoli/Missing Women Commission of Inquiry/Adev04! 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)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

I'm reviewing Missing Women Commission of Inquiry (Missing Women Commission of Inquiry) by Kpredika, Taegen e, and Ucalpoli.

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
This lead is good, very concise with its explanation of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, including what the Commission is, who is involved, the timeline, the outcomes, and its critiques. It had all the pertinent information from your article without going into too much detail as that will come later. One thing I'm not sure of is whether commission would need a capital C or not. If it does not, then nothing needs to be changed, but if it does, then there are two 'commissions' that could use a capital letter. Also, the introductory sentence clearly introduces the topic. The one recommendation is a bit of rewording of this sentence as it is a little lengthy. Otherwise, good job on the lead!

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Each section of this article ties directly to the topic and helps to develop a well-rounded understanding of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry! THe topic is explained in a way that is easy to understand but provides lots of details. All the W questions are answered with "who, what, when, where, why." I also like how the article has a 'similar projects' section and a 'see also' section for further reading and knowledge on the topic. The sources used are from 2012 up until 2017, which shows that the content includes information from when the Commission as well as updated information from more recently. I like how the History section was explained in detail and that it was clear how these events with Pickton led to the creation of this commission. The article does a great job at recognizing how the Commission did not include voices of Indigenous peoples, how the structure represented more of a western/European-centred perspective, and the presence of unacknowledged systemic racism. Obviously I did not do the research on this topic, so I could be wrong in suggesting this, but maybe there could be more positive outcomes or achievements from the Commission added? Or have any Indigenous groups made any statements about the Commission? There seems to be a bit of a lack of balance as the criticism section is large (then again, it could be that this is because the Commission did not have equal achievements to criticisms).

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
This article was written in a way that bias does not seem to be present. The events and information are provided neutrally without any phrases or expressions that would let the reader know that the authors favour one viewpoint over another. Some opinions were provided by Indigenous peoples which is great. I do like that the criticisms were provided as it is important to look critically and analytically at topics like this Commission and to make sure that readers know that the Commission for Inquiry was not perfect and had issues with its framework, with a lack of inclusion of Indigenous peoples,. and with systemic racism. I guess I mentioned this in the content section where the criticisms seem heavier than the achievements/ positive outcomes of the Inquiry.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are a variety of sources to support this article, and they are reliable as many come from articles or government documents and reports. One point that could help the reference section is that some of the sources seem to be just links with a page number and are missing citation information. I did not realize at first that these are the same sources as others in the list. For example, citation 1 and 10 have the complete info, but it seems like citation 2 and 3 are from the same source but only have the link to the pdf. Also, when clicking on citation 4, it seems as though there is a title and author of the source that can be included.

The sources are current and relevant, as none are older than eight years old. The diversity in the sources is good as well, as some are written by authors while others are government sources. The links seems to work as 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
This article flows really well in a way that makes sense. I like that it starts with the history, including Pickton's story, to the information of the finding of the Inquiry, to the outcomes, to the criticisms, to other reading. The order works nicely and is logical. The writing of the sections is clear and worded in a way that is not complex, and is easily understood. One little tiny inconsistency I've seen is that Inquiry has been capitalized in some parts and not others. Otherwise for grammar, there aren't too many mistakes that would take away from the article. Some commas are missing but this can easily be fixed after reading through to edit.

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?

Images and media evaluation
The image in this article is of a park bench that is dedicated to missing and murdered in women in Vancouver. This helps to show how big of an issue the MMIW issue is, especially in Vancouver, where a lot of women were kidnapped from the Downtown Eastside. I understand why this picture is here. However, the picture I guess does not exactly relate to the Commission itself. That being said, I understand how hard it is to find relevant images that adhere to the copyright regulations. The image has a caption that explains what the image is. I also like that there are numerous links in the article that allow for further reading.

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?

New Article Evaluation
The article does meet the Notability requirements, as there are numerous sources that aren't solely about the Commission. I do not know the extent of the available literature on the subject, but this reference list does seem exhaustive as it is a balance between academic articles and government reports and documents.The layout follows a typical wikipedia layout with headings that make sense, and a table of contents section. I think I mentioned this above but yes many links are present to allow to understand concepts mentioned in the article.

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
Overall, I'm impressed by the article. Great work guys! I learned things from this article I did not know before and I was not confused at any point. I guess to summarize on my suggestions is maybe add a little more to the post inquiry outcomes? Or add some more perspectives about the Inquiry. Thanks for the read!! ALso I hope I did this right? On the training, it said to do this in the talk page?? But then this outline was on this page? Anyways, I hope this helps