Talk:Wakara's War

I really liked the article! You did a good job with the images and with the tone of the article. It had a lot of good information and good sources. I think you should work on the lead so it's more of a summary of all the sections. And just add a few more details about the war, because I was really curious to learn more!

Peer Review:

General info •	Whose work are you reviewing? Wellsl4 •	Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wellsl4/sandbox 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? No, if the article is about Wakara’s War, then the topic sentence should discuss the war, not the chief it’s named for. •	Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not really, the lead focuses more on the chief than the war and what happened. •	Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it kind of makes me wonder if this was a lead at all or if it was really just another section. •	Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? This is a very concise section, and has a lot of information that’s very helpful and adds to the understanding of Wakara’s War. Lead evaluation 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, though some details need to be added or elaborated. •	Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, I’d never heard of Wakara or Wakara’s War before reading this article, so that was fun to learn about! Content evaluation Tone and Balance Guiding questions: •	Is the content added neutral? Yes, it does a good job of staying neutral, but it could stand to discuss the actions and reactions of the Native Americans a little bit more. •	Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, there is a bit of a leaning towards the Utah Mormon perspective, though more in content and representation rather than tone and persuasion. •	Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes. Though it is interesting to learn about Wakara in the beginning, it would be good to talk a little bit more about the Native Americans when discussing the war. •	Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, overall, I didn’t feel like there was a bias, so they did a really good job with that. Tone and balance evaluation 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, but it would be cool if they could add some more from the Native American perspective if they can find it. •	Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions: •	Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, I thought it was very clear. •	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? Yes, it does a good job of splitting up the events of the war. Organization evaluation 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? I believe so. •	Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. Images and media evaluation 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? There are an ample amount of sources, especially considering this is probably not a subject that has a lot of coverage. •	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, though I think the lead needs a bit more work. •	Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, it links to articles about the Mormon pioneers. New Article Evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions: •	Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. •	What are the strengths of the content added? I think it is very concise and informative, and does a good job with the pictures and captions. •	How can the content added be improved? I think the lead needs some work and they should add a few more details about the war and about the Native American perspective. Overall evaluation

I think your article could be separated into more sub-sections covering things such as tribal designations or "slavery among native Americans". The flow of the Article was a bit confusing, and I got lost in the tribal affiliations in play. Overall the tone is balanced considering that there are few sources from the native American perspective. However i feel that the "repercussions" section could be longer.

Peer review article.
General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Link to draft you're reviewing: 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? Not quite but close. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No. Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, vary much so. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, I would say that more information of the consequences of the events and more detail on the tribal affiliations would be appropriate. Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I would say yes. Content evaluation Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I wouldn't say so. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?Several problems result from documentary holes, this is expected considering the subject, however i think the article deals with these subjects fairly and is honest about the lack of details due to unavailable documentation and scholarship. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article appears balanced. Tone and balance evaluation 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? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Check a few links. Do they work? Given the space source material available, I would consider he article fair and balanced. Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? At some points the writing lacks organization and direction. 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? the article could use more fluid organization. Organization evaluation 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? Not exactly. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Apparently not. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. Images and media evaluation 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 It would appear so. 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? No but that is to be expected. Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No. New Article Evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. What are the strengths of the content added? It delineates native American relations with L.D.S. settlers at the time period, as well as how the populations were relocated or exterminated. How can the content added be improved? More information regarding tribal characteristics and consequences will make the article overall more useful as well as able to link to other articles on Wikipedia. Overall evaluation: The Article is balanced and interesting but lacks organization and and emphasis on why the subject matter in important.

Article cleanup
I haven't really done or reported anything like this before, so unfortunately I don't really have a bearing on how to fix whatever's going on here. Much of this article reads like a high school research paper. The style is very informal. I assume most of the information is accurate, however there are some ambiguities and unclear statements, e.g.: "The effects of this event were very large and severe." As well as awkward statements, e.g.: "However, that was not the original intent of the religious settlers. Their original intent was to use a plan to defend themselves and attempt to improve their relations with the Utes." Binya2021 (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)