User:Ucalpoli/Missing Women Commission of Inquiry/Ryancollins1999 Peer Review

General info

 * Ucalpoli, Taegen e and Kpredika
 * Missing Women Commission of Inquiry

Lead

 * There's a notice at the top that indicates that the article still needs to be updated. Not sure if that is still applicable.
 * Introductory sentence is good.
 * No description of the organization of the article, although it's followed by a table of contents.
 * No information in the lead that's not included in the article.
 * The lead is concise to the point where it might include more detail. The lead is two sentences, and maybe doesn't include enough about what the commission accomplished, what its goals were, etc. I know this stuff is all elaborated below, but the purpose of the lead is to give the reader a sense of what they're about to read, not just the bare-bones of the subject.

Content

 * The content in this article does seem to be relevant to the subject, other than the History section. It does eventually get around to discussing why Pickton is relevant to the inquiry, but it goes into a lot of detail about his crimes, which may not be directly connected to the inquiry. That is to say, one reading the history section may be forgiven for assuming that the entire article is about Robert Pickton, but then he's not mentioned again in the rest of the article.
 * The content appears to be up to date.
 * In the history section, there are four bullet points of the mandates of the inquiry. Then, the actual recommendations are given in the "Post-Inquiry Actions" section. This section seems to cover very little of what the bullet points talked about. It does cover some of the major recommendations of the inquiry, but it fails to provide an adequate overview of the organization and mission of the inquiry. The "Criticisms of the inquiry" section is much longer than the section containing information about the inquiry itself. The reader is thus left with a rather incomplete view of what the inquiry actually said.
 * The article certainly does address underrepresented populations, and a Wikipedia equity gap highlighting Indigenous women. The "Criticism" section discusses at length the problems with the inquiry in its ability to address the claims and needs of Indigenous women. In effect, the article is entirely about an equity gap, and works very effectively to bring attention to it and to try to reduce it.

Tone and Balance

 * The content added to this article shows excellent restraint and neutrality. The article simply states what the inquiry said, what other people said in response, and what the results were. It does not venture opinions or perspectives.
 * Certainly, most of the claims in the article are biased toward the view that the inquiry was insufficient; this can be deduced by the fact that there is a big section on the criticism of the inquiry. This claim is not biased though, because again, it simply offers and analysis of the various perspectives on the article, and the main perspective tends to be critical.
 * It may be useful to see some more information on the positive perspective of the inquiry. That is, a balanced portrayal of the inquiry might present some of its positive outcomes, or a scholarly perspective that supported its findings. I know you did include some of its outcomes, but I'd like to hear more about what was accomplished. Likewise, it may be hard to find a scholar you opines positively about the inquiry, because often the motivation for writing comes from the desire to address some societal problem.
 * It definitely does try to persuade the reader that the inquiry was insufficient, but again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. If there were obvious, serious problems with the inquiry that were pointed out extensively, then the article would be remiss in not addressing these.

Sources and References

 * The new information does seem to come from reputable sources, not very little is just put out with no accompanying source. However, some of the citations don't give an exact location for the relevant information. For example, one citations gives a huge page range, making it hard to know exactly where that information was found.
 * There seem to be three categories of sources: first, there are documents that directly related to the inquiry, like the inquiry itself, and a subsequent report from the auditor general. Then there are scholarly works on the inquiry, and finally, news articles and opinions about the inquiry. This seems to constitute a wide range of material on the inquiry, however: sometimes, phrases like "was thought by many" and "is a common critique of the inquiry" and "many critics found" are used. What follows is then not exactly comprehensive evidence of a consensus among critics. If you're citing one source's opinion, keep the description to that opinion, rather than suggesting that this person speaks for the majority.
 * The inquiry was concluded in 2012, and most of the sources seem to be from then, which is a sign of good, contemporary engagement. There's not much literature in recent years, in fact the most recent source is from 2017, with most not after 2013. This isn't necessarily negative, however, because most of the discussion presumably took place around the time of the inquiry.
 * The authors seem to be from a diverse spectrum, with many female names among them. That's really all that's evident from the information given, and frankly, it doesn't matter who is writing about this topic. If they choose to study it, it is because they have the interest in the marginalized population on which the report focuses.
 * The links work, and they lead directly to PDF documents of the sources, which is optimal.

Organization

 * The content is well written and concise. It seems to be of a fairly high level.
 * There are a few awkward sentence structures and couple of missing words, but other than that, I found a very high standard of writing.
 * The organization is a bit odd, especially the section titled "The Inquiry and Overrepresentation of Indigenous Women". This section consists only of one aspect of the inquiry, Indigenous Women, and would probably be better served later in the article. The first section after History should be called something like "recommendations" or simply "The Inquiry", and should describe generally the inquiry itself, rather than one particular aspect of it. The criticisms section is really well written and organized. Criticism is obviously a big part of the story of the inquiry, and that importance is carried through in the organization and presentation of the article.

Images and Media

 * The one image that was included is kind of irrelevant. Just shows that there is public acknowledgement of the problems addressed in the inquiry. Perhaps a photo of the commissioner, Robert Pickton, the Highway of Tears, Vancouver East side, or if you could find a photo of the inquiry itself.
 * Not enough content to evaluate properly.

Overall impressions

 * The article is certainly more complete due to the new additions. The additions tell the story of the commission, what it recommended, what it focused on, and how it was received. The article was rather insufficient before, and additions significantly improve it.
 * The content added is detailed and tells a cohesive story. The content is impressively neutral; it adheres well to the tone that Wikipedia strives for. The article is relatively well organized and covers most of the main components of topic.
 * Edit with an eye towards organization, especially information about the main goals and messages of the inquiry. Watch for awkward sentence structure and grammatical mistakes. Reevaluate whether the "history" section contains information that is relevant to the article.