User talk:Redpanda2301/Deaf Life for Indigenous Populations in Canada/Toriracz Peer Review

Content

 * Overall I think content is great, but I do think there could be more information provided in a few sections. For example the "Deaf Empowerment" section the 2 organizations were really good but adding more detailed information on it would be better. It is also okay to have negative information! We are being honest and stating the facts! To make that section stronger I would definitely try and find another organization if possible.
 * Regarding content up to date I think it is really good although going back to adding more details on certain sections, I would hope that there is more recent information than just 2010, if that is the case then keep it! But I do believe in more recent sections you listed 2019 which is good, is that the most recent you can get?
 * I know we are going week by week, but in some cases I find information about another topic and add it in! I would definitely do that to fill in other sections if possible! Overall good work on updating content.

Tone and Balance

 * Your style of writing is great for Wikipedia, the tone of this article so far is very neutral.

Sources and References

 * All your sources are very reliable and when writing you use it to back it up or in this case state the facts. I do think getting more sources would help your article become "stronger", I did start using sources that were used by an article, study, or website I really think that type of searching would help you as well.

Organization

 * I think the layout of the article for each topic, the organization is really well! Great job!

New Articles Only

 * I think you are doing a great job with having a variety of sources and following Wikipedia's Notability requirements.
 * Expanding the sources (maybe finding more information/sources) would make your article stronger.
 * I like how you linked other Wikipedia sources to your article! Great job!

Overall Impressions:

 * I think the content has improved the quality of the article.
 * The strengths that are in this article is the way it is written in a neutral context.
 * The content could be improved by adding more information in a couple sections as well as maybe diving into more sources.

Toriracz (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)