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.

Whose work are you reviewing?

Meh259

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Meh259/Ainu language - Wikipedia

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Ainu language - Wikipedia

(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.)

Based on the lead in the existing article, the only information that matches the draft is that few elderly members speak the language. Besides this, the two leads are quite dissimilar as the draft's lead elaborates on speakers and examples of the language, as well as opining on the importance of the language itself which is inconsistent with the goal of an impartial tone. Not that the two leads have to match, but it doesn't appear as though the information from the draft was incorporated into the main article's lead. That said, I agree with the draft's idea of adding information about the speakers into the lead as opposed to making it a separate paragraph like the main article did, because the information feels relevant and natural to include up front.

As far as organization, I'd suggest putting the "Recognition" section either as the penultimate or final section as opposed to near the beginning as it is now; it feels more like a closing sentiment on how the culture is viewed by the greater majority populations, or bigger picture stuff. I'd move "Oral Literature" between "Phonology" and "Writing" because it might fit more intuitively there as it's kind of a composite of both.

The content is fairly balanced in that the viewpoints of the sources are equally represented, however, the language could be more encyclopedic (especially in the draft) by not labeling things in preferential terms or by their importance. For example, saying that the Ainu language is "important" and "needs" to be passed on to future generations includes unnecessary editorialization and kind of subliminally feels like you're pushing an agenda, as innocuous as it may be. This point also applies to the "neutral content" parameter... my advice is just to be as straightforward as possible, and even if a particular source happens to be an opinion piece or something, you can cite their findings impartially, state their viewpoint, and/or leave an embedded in-text citation to have their work speak for itself.

The main article has many reliable sources, bolded/embedded links, and in-text citations. The draft, however, is lacking in that department (I know it's just a lead, but it'd be good to back up the claims you have there with the sources you've gathered). As it stands, the draft has far too few references, so maybe borrowing some from the main article might offer some sources for information. The main article's use of footnotes is a bit excessive, but being that it's a longer article it does add some valuable information and it's really a personal preference. I noticed more of the data-driven sources than the "Early Writings On..." sources being represented in the article, but that makes sense because the article is heavy on the mechanics of the language. The draft sources are valid, I'd just suggest combining them with some from the main article to make the whole bibliography more substantial.

Overall the content is good, it provides the tools for both a basic handle on the people's culture and the fundamentals of their language. The entirety of the draft's lead kind of sums up three or four different sections of the main article, so I'd use the lead as an opportunity to introduce the concept of Ainu first and then use subheadings to branch off into history and recognition and salvaging the language and whatever else.