User talk:Haleyfeuerman/Fulani extremism

I really like your lead and I think the background information is a really good introduction to the topic. I forgot to have a lead in my article and I like the way that this background information helped set up what you talked about in the rest of the article.

I think you have really good statistics too but If there were any more statistics you could find this would be valuable to the article. Also, if there are any main prominent attacks I think that it would be interesting to describe one or link one under that section.

I think overall you have a lot of important information that was missing from the original article but it may be helpful to add some more statistics or events.

Quinnmuscatel (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Quinn Muscatel

Peer Review
Lead: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise Lead evaluation: good!

Content: Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes Is the content added up-to-date? yes Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes Content evaluation: good!

Tone and Balance: Is the content added neutral? yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no Tone and balance evaluation: good! Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes Are the sources current? yes Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes Check a few links. Do they work? there are no active links outside of wikipedia links Sources and references evaluation: okay!

Organization: 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 Organization evaluation: good! Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes! What are the strengths of the content added? it is more detailed than the previous content How can the content added be improved? adding pictures maybe? Overall evaluation: great article! PSCI2237 (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)PSCCI2237