User:AmoderateDflatmajor/Danielle Forward/Foureyeslinguistics Peer Review

General info
AmoderateDflatmajor, RedCellar, Sampoidk
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Danielle Forward
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Danielle Forward

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? I was mostly surprised at the lack of lingustic relevance.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is a heavy focus on her activism and her non-profit but it doesn't go into great detail about the initiatives they offer. There is little to no focus on her contributions to linguistics or connection to corpuslinguistics.
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? The sources were really good and had several outside sources.
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? The articles are interviews and are coming from Native magazines
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? I think the subsections of the Career section should be separated, maybe into Career and Activism.