User:Vedisobe/Cultural identity/Skyjay999 Peer Review

General info
Jenny Lunte
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://w.wiki/9Bxo:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://w.wiki/_tr5D:

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):

LEAD: The introduction sentence is a accurate encapsulation of the heading topics that will be present in the article body. Im not sure why there are words with parentheses and question marks included. If they are temporary awaiting feedback, in the first sentence I would suggest using (belonging) as well as self. The lead contains a robust list of the major topics that are and will be discussed in the article body. The lead included a list of topics that are found in the article or will be added per the outline. The lead could do with out the words in parentheses or include a brief description of what their purpose is. There could be a brief description from the editor of what feedback about these words is desired. Over all the lead is well done.

CONTENT: The content is consistent withe main heading of the article. The purposed additions are relevant. The references cited in the outline and the lead appear to be from an appropriate time frame. The nature of the topic allows for some leeway to include data from less recent sources. The original article is missing a history section which the editor is going to edit. I think this is a great idea being that the original article is fairly robust. Edits to the history will be a needed and important addition. The proposed changes only reference one specific marginalized identity (only in the sandbox: the bibliography is fully inclusive). The purposed changes will address marginalized populations especially with the challenging culture reference(Boas).

TONE and BALANCE: In the history section (sandbox) the claim is made that a particular position was radical for the time without any clear citation. Also the mention of concerns of "cultural homogenization" may be referencing a cited position yet it appears to be an attempt to persuade. There is a clear citation so I think this section is ok. I think there is a clear attempt to objectively represent the history of cultural identity. I don't believe the reference are unreasonably bias towards any position. I believe the topic lends itself to having created less than optimal outcomes. I see from the outline this will be cited exhaustively as not to favor a specific position.

SOURCES and REFERENCES: The bibliography for this article is extensive. Each article listed in the bibliography has a brief description of why it is being used. This section is exhaustive I believe from the dates and the explanations given the information in the bibliography is from reputable sources. The references are written by a diverse collection of authors.

OVERALL IMPRESSION: Im not sure if the paragraphs in the bibliography or the outline in the sandbox is the final draft outline. I looked at both and wrote about them both. I think it looks like the editing to going to be relevant and valuable. The bibliography page is done well. I think I might adopt aspect of the origination seen in the bibliography. The description given in the bibliography clearly describes the direction you wish to go. There is an ample about of citations, if anything the sheer number of references may make focusing on a specific area a bit difficult. Well done!! I wish you all the best.