User:Adampierce012/Walkaras War/Bryceklingonsmith 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? Wellsl4 Adampierce012
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Wellsl4/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? -- The lead was forgotten (the article jumps right into the content)
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? n/a

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. Even the content that wasn't directly about the wakara war was beneficial to the development of the article. One thing I did notice is that you mentioned that the mormons were intent on converting the Natives in one of the beginning paragraphs. This seemed out of place because the rest of the article is about their war with them. I think this information would be more relevant if you could relate back to it later in the article. Otherwise, it doesn't seem like it has that much to do with the war itself.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? -- I didn't totally understand how Wakara was the Paiute chief but ended up leading the Ute tribe in war. Either I missed something (very possible) or something should clarified. Also, it would be awesome if you could include some information about the damage caused by the war. For example, how many died on each side? How many battles were there? Where did the battles take place? Were the natives fighting with Law enforcement, military, or settlers? It would be interesting if you could include information about how the "mormon" military was structured (i.e. how did they defend themselves?), but that's not important.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? -- I feel like the pioneers and the native Americans from Utah are historically underrepresented, so yes.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? I thought it was completely neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not that I noticed
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I thought both viewpoints were perfectly summarized and represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not at all. One thing I will say about the tone in general is that it seems at times a little bit unprofessional. Like it's not how other wikipedia articles sound. For example, "Chief Wakara would end up dying in 1855..." and "on multiple occasions he attempted at making peace."

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I thought everything was perfectly cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Absolutely.
 * Are the sources current? There were a couple that were current but it was hard to tell how new the others were. From what I could see though, it seems like you struck a good balance between modern sources and older sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yessir
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yup

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I feel like this sentence could be clearer: "Although the war was not primarily between the two groups, yet the Utes were stealing some of the livestock of the settlers, which would lead to the Violence." I think everything was fine for a first draft, you just need to read through again and make sentences like these a little bit more concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Other than the one I mentioned in the "tone" section, I didn't really notice any mistakes.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yeah, I thought everything was perfectly organized. The more I think about it though, I think the section on the war itself ought to be a lot bigger than it is.

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? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? I don't know if publishing the article will make things any different, but the images should be on the right hand side like they are in other wikipedia articles

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? heck yeah
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I thought the content to sourcing ratio was perfect.
 * 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 I already mentioned where I think you could fix that.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yeah, I noticed a few other links! Maybe it could use a few extra but I thought it was good.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? n/a
 * What are the strengths of the content added? n/a
 * How can the content added be improved? n/a