User:Shriya175/Caste politics/Reneemessinger 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?

Shriya175

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shriya175/Caste_politics?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Caste politics

Evaluate the drafted changes

The draft looks great! I can tell lots of time went into all of your additions. I would suggest that you copyedit the first sentence of the original mainspace text because it's very wordy and does't quite make sense. You could change, "Studies have published which presented evidence would suggested that the influence of caste has been declining since the mid-1990s" into "Presented evidence in published studies suggests that the influence of caste has been declining since the mid-1990s." I feel like many areas in the original text could be reworded to be easier to read, but it's not necessary that you do so for all of them. I think you transitioned into your paragraph well, but there could be more of an introductory sentence to ease the reader into the discussion of lower-caste groups. I see you also quoted an article here, and while that's good for essays, to my knowledge, I don't think it's allowed on Wikipedia. I would remove “nonhierarchical social imaginaries" and restate the sentence in your own words. Also, the last few sentences should be backed up by more evidence or just bring in the same evidence that you have earlier in the paragraph, if that's where your information came from. There is also a period that I'm not sure if you meant for it to be a comma or you forgot to capitalize the letter of the next word, but here it is: The prominent influence of Sanskritization meant that mobilizations in the North were restricted by conforming to the existing hierarchies. and in practical terms, this reinforced the dominance of elites within a specific region. (see the underlined portion). I think this would be great as two separate sentences by getting rid of the "and in practical terms" and simply start the next sentence off with "This reinforced..." to give it a more confident approach. Overall, I think all of the information you've provided is very relevant and it's all well-written. I especially like how you included the specific pages that each piece of evidence was found on. I would just copyedit more of the original text, add more citations to your text, give an introductory sentence, and fix the quotations as well as the grammatical mistake.