User:WIKI4AUS/People of Determination in the UAE/Oh KDB Peer Review


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?  yes, but more information from the source that has been used could be provided, more details. 
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?  No, the lead is a statement that defines the term "people of determination". No description on the article's sections included. 
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?  No, but the information in the lead doesn't include what is written in the other sections. 
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?  the lead is very concise and it needs more details, some information from the source could be added. 
 * Is the content added neutral?  yes, the article is informative. 
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?  No 
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?  yes, both sections could have more information presented. 
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?  No, the content is neutral. 
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?  yes 
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)  yes 
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?  yes, all sources all 2019 and above. 
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?  yes, British sources has been used and local. 
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No, the sources used are very good and have enough information of the topic.
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?  yes 
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?  no 
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?  yes, the content is broken down into sections. 
 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?  yes, the article is supported by 3 sources. 
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?  yes 
 * 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?  yes, it contains section headings. 
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?  no, the article has a totally new topic that is not found in wikipedia. 
 * How can the content added be improved?  To use more information from the sources given. 
 * The article needs more details from the credible sources used and some improvement in the lead.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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.)