User:Venkatapalaka/Black in AI/Releti7 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - The lead has been added to reflect new changes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - The lead included an introductory paragraph that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - The lead provided a structured detail and covered all the important aspects.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, all the contents are added relevant to the topic and I can also see new citations are added.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, after going through all the references I can say that the content is up-to-date.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? - There isn't any discrimination or bias shown in the content which is added.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - I cannot see any claims which appear heavily biased. You've balanced everything well.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - I cannot see anything which is overrepresented or underrepresented, you've managed everything well.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) - I've gone through all the citations, accurate information is provided, but, you've taken most of the information from a single source or a repeated source, where you could've done some more digging into more sources and present the information. It could've helped the readers to know more when they see a different source and also you would get more information to tell the reader.
 * Are the sources current? - Yes, all the sources which are added are in the current sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes, all the links are in a working state.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - The content which is added can be easily read and it is understandable.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - No, there aren't any spelling or grammatical mistakes from the content.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, the content added is well organized, you've cited everything and the information provided is well readable. Everything is well portrayed, you've put all the information under the right heading.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - Yes, you've added conferences and workshops, which made me learn something more than what I knew. That was impressive.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - From the content, the strengths are the conferences and workshops, where I've got to learn something new and made me do some more digging about it. I'm curious.
 * How can the content added be improved? - There should've been some images added to the content which would have made it more readable and more interesting to appeal reading. Apart from it, everything was well organized and the information provided is on point and up-to-date. Nice work.