Talk:Beth Piatote

Peer Review Feedback
Users: Apryo574, LOC2020, Ashley-Rae.CW, EricaRPGriffith Link: User:LOC2020/sandbox

The Lead does an adequate job of describing what the article is going to talk about, but the flow just isn't quite there yet, it appears too concise and choppy. Because almost every line begins with either "Beth Piatote" or "Piatote" it's like the sentences are in fragments or bullet points. The authors have all the information they need, but have to find a way to make it all connect. The authors mention her actual, tangible job and her education in the Lead, but don't give either one its own notable section throughout the rest of the page. I think that it would be beneficial to do so, especially because even if these particular authors don't have what they believe is a substantial amount of information to fill those sections quite yet, just having the headings available opens the floor up to other authors to add into once these articles go live and public. All the content is on-topic with the main subject, nothing is disconnected. After taking an in-depth look at the dates on the works cited list, all of the information appears to be up-to-date and reliable as there appears to be an extensive time-span from 2009 to 2019. All of the content that has been added to the page is noteworthy and certainly belongs in a bibliographical setting, but I hope the authors are not afraid to really dissect Beth Piatote's life and add any scrap of information they can and make it really rich in detail and substance. Make lots of headings!These authors have done an excellent job at staying neutral and keeping the content fact-based and the tone professional; there is no evidence of bias or persuasion. The links work, the sources are current because they reflect years all the way to 2019, each source reflects the information available, however the authors should cite where they found the information about her awards and how they found out where she went to post-secondary and what degrees she received. Always remember each in-text citation covers all information immediately before it. The page is easy to read, no jargon, it is a little too concise but that is easy to fix. As expected, spelling and grammar looks great. As I mentioned earlier, the organization is really good, the authors are making use of their headings, but I definitely believe they should make more and give everything its own category. The page does present sources that are independent of direct analysis of Beth Piatote, specifically, so it does fall under the guidelines for Wikipedia's Notability requirements. For a first draft, there are 12 sources total which creates for a good environment of reliability. It follows the classic Wikipedia format with headings and sub-headings. The page links to Beth Piatote's novel, The Beadworkers, so if individuals are looking for her book then it is more than likely that they will find her as well. Overall, I think the page is a good first draft and that it has a lot of potential and room for more information and detail. The strengths are definitely the neutrality of the tone and the directness of the information. I believe that more headings and more detail would be a great addition to their article. HollandKatherine (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
This article is coherent, well balanced, and organized, and I commend your group for creating a wikipedia page for an author who does not have one! The lead section is comparable to other Indigenous author articles and contributes factual information regarding Beth Piatote's heritage and notability. The second sentence in the lead, "She is a member of Chief Joseph’s Tribe and the Colville Confederated Tribes," could be cited and linked to another wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederated_Tribes_of_the_Colville_Reservation) to support the information given. Additionally, the lead could include some mention of Piatote's most notable works, as well as general themes in her work, in order to inform the reader of the author's relevant scholarship and credibility. I would also add what Piatote's PhD is in, and provide a reference for this. The "Life" section could contain a more biography-like flow, with Piatote's date and place of birth. Also, possibly move the sentence "Her research interests include Ni:mi:pu: (Nez Perce) language and literature, Native American/Aboriginal literature and federal Indian law in the United States and Canada, as well as American literature and cultural studies, history and law" to the lead section as it may confuse readers being in the biography section (it reads as though when Piatote was "a reporter with the Eugene Register-Guard," she was interested in the research stated in the next sentence). If you can find the information, maybe state Piatote's research while completing her undergrad/masters/PhD (if it is relevant to her as an author/academic contributor). The first sentence of the "Life" section regarding the Register Guard could also include a link to the wikipedia page on that newspaper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Register-Guard). If possible, include what Piatote is working on right now, or her most recent studies, towards the end of the "Life" section to give the section that "living biography" tone. The "Works" section is to-the-point and organized. However, maybe include a short summary for each of the works Piatote has written, in order to align with the rest of the article, and pluralize "Short Story Collection(s)" (or call the subtitle "Books" as they are still considered books). Additionally, try to incorporate Piatote's awards in the Lead section, as well as include links to the wikipedia pages of these awards. Lastly, include a picture of Beth Piatote (if you can find one that adheres to the guidelines of Wikipedia's copyright regulations)! Overall, great work, can't wait to see the final draft, and again, great job on creating a new wiki page. Jkint568 (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)