User:Ucalpoli/Missing and murdered Indigenous women/AliSyed25 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username): Ucalpoli
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Missing and murdered Indigenous women#Savanna's Act

Lead

Guiding questions:

• 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? It is very detailed and long for a lead. should be more precise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• 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 murdered indigenous women is high rate crime that doesn't get enough exposure and attention

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• 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? i'd say its fairly represented
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

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? yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? its very long and sometimes confusing to read could be more simple.
• 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? Lead is all over the place but the rest is good

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is 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? yes
• 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
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes the article is very full of good useful new information on the subject matter.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths are the quantity added and the resources given about the issues at hand. It gives a context and informative news on the matter. It is engaging and gives justice to the indigenous community.
• How can the content added be improved? One area that could be improved immensely is the lead it way too long and lots of the information should be moved elsewhere.

Overall evaluation:

Overall theres lot of information to dissect especially in the Lead. The lead should be more simple and concise giving the overall rundown of the article not giving too much information which could be placed in different places. The pictures are nice and simple that represent the communities well and effectively. The information is informative with credible working sources and links.