User:ZuhaSarai/Article 370 of the Constitution of India/Na.annamalai 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) ZuhaSarai
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:ZuhaSarai/sandbox

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?

Lead evaluation

The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer. The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The lead does provide a brief description of most of the article's major sections though some sections aren't covered. The lead doesn't include information that isn't present in the article. I'd say the lead is mostly concise though portions of the lead are a tad 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?

Content evaluation

The content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date! Definitely provides important information regarding human rights in Kashmir and improves the quality of the entire section.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

The content added is neutral—I do not feel swayed towards any particular point of view when I read it. Furthermore, no claims appear heavily biased towards a particular position. I don't think there are viewpoints being overrepresent or underrepresented. The content serves as an effective informational introduction in a section which is biased enough that there's a note when you visit the page.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

The content is backed up by reliable secondary sources though one citation is actually linked back to the main wikipedia article which doesn't seem correct. The sources are thorough—three sources are academic works, one source is a news article, and one source is the main wikipedia article. The sources are mostly current. The links 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?

Organization evaluation

The content is well-written. There aren't any glaring grammatical or spelling errors though sentence structure could be modified a bit in areas to make for a clearer read. The content is well organized and has an appropriate progression of information.

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?

Images and media evaluation

Not applicable.

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?
• 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?

New Article Evaluation

Not applicable.

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?

Overall evaluation

The content added improved the overall quality of the article. In particular, it provides a much less biased paragraph in a section which seems to be quite biased. Great content overall, though I think information presented could be clearer. I'd suggest you reread the work from the perspective of someone who has very little to no background information on the article and make the appropriate edits!