User:Allie1414/Interculturalism/Bioarchaeo Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
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

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
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?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
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?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Allie1414

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Allie1414/interculturalism
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Interculturalism

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 lead has been fleshed out a bit, but I would add another sentence or two to the lead to specifically address the additions you've made to the original article (Interculturalism and Health and Interculturalism and the Law). Nitpicky thing: the last sentence of the lead uses 'ideals' twice in one sentence in really close proximity which sounds clunky.

Content

The content added seems really relevant to the topic and an interesting addition!! I can't wait for more to be added to the new sections because I am super interested to see what you put in!

In the 'Usage' section - the top paragraph should be more of a summary of the subsections to come. The original 'Usage' section seems really Western country heavy, which you are definitely improving with the addition of your 'Health' and 'Law' sections, but I'm wondering if some of the specifics in the lead of the Usage section (ex: the stuff about UNESCO, Canada, etc) shouldn't be moved into a sub-section and a new lead for that section put forth that serves as more of a summary of sub-sections to come?

In the intercultural health section, you cite a bunch of studies that have been done in various countries, but don't summarize any results. I think it would be good in this paragraph to provide very broad summaries of some of the positive impacts of these intercultural health projects (as well as summarize challenges that have been raised through these studies if there are any?).

RE: proposed additions that have not been fleshed out yet - you mention problematizing 'buen vivir', I think it might be good to also include in that sub-section an overview of 'buen vivir' and its usage so far prior to introducing critique (to maintain that more encyclopedic, neutral tone)

What has been added so far is well-written, concise, and well populated with citations!

I'd love to see you add more to diversify the existing 'Further Readings' section, especially with recommendations to gain more exposure to Indigenous perspectives on interculturalism.

Tone and Balance

I think your additions are personally going to improve the balance of the article greatly! Echoing what I said in the content section, if you're introducing concepts with the intent to problematize (ex: 'buen vivir') make sure you neutrally define them first and include examples of positive uses in addition to critiques (again, in the spirit of balance).

I think this article is also still lacking content of critiques of interculturalism (if their are any) - that might fit well in the 'Reception' section?

Sources and References

I think the citations you have so far look really good! Echoing before, I think it would be awesome to expand the 'Further Reading' section. And maybe position it before the 'References' section for added visibility? Though I'm unsure if there is wiki rules surrounding the placement of that section that I'm just unaware of.

Organization

Content, spelling/grammar, and organization so far look good, except for the note I made about the 'Usage' section in the 'Content' portion of this review above! Definitely try to flesh out those points you've yet to expand on!

Overall

I think you've made some excellent additions and done a good job of rounding this article out into something more comprehensive! Can't wait to read the rest!