User:Anirod12345/Nora Marks Dauenhauer/CalebTraxler Peer Review

Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? A: At the time of this review, the lead has not been changed, nor does it need to be.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? A: Yes, with a little extra detail about what she is known for.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? A: There is too much data to include in the lead, but there is an ample description of the figure.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? A: No, it does not.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? A: The lead is concise and includes the correct amount of information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? A: Yes, there was refinement on the editing side, and the added context is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? A: Yes, all content seems up to date, to the best of my knowledge.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? A: I do not believe so, the content of the article goes through the figure's family life, the figure's career, and then finishes with connections to other articles and a detailed list of the figure's publications.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? A: What is seen as under represented is highly subjective unless you go with statistics, but because this is an edit of an article and not a creation, I assume the statistical representation on wikipedia will remain the same as before this edit.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, all information added to the site was informational and was unbiased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? A: There is hardly a position to take on a person who is morte. No, there are not any claims of this nature.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? A:There is a lot of time spent on her native heritage and culture, but this is also what she was known for and spent her career focusing on so I don't see any problem with it.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The new content is better sourced than the original content, and yes, it is mostly verifiable and secondary.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes, in the four or five statements I checked, they were accurately represented in the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? A: Yes, they do. Pretty much all of it and anything that is remotely related.
 * Are the sources current? A: The figure is morte, so yes, the sources are as current as they can be.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The authors are mainly Native Alaskan or very interested in Native Alaskan works. Side note: whether someone's people group is "historically marginalized" shouldn't matter in promotion and qualification of sources, authority on a topic alone should be the driving factor for reliable sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? A: Same as when I checked on the other links, these links also work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? A: For anyone unfamiliar with Alaska Native culture or the Tlingit language, some content may be skipped over in the career and early life section simply because the concepts are foreign, but if someone does want to dig into it, the hyperlinks are plentiful.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A: Noooooooot that I can see really? I couldn't find any after my second read through of the document.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? A: This article shines here, even the publications are broken down into sections based on relevance.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? A: Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? A; I believe so.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? A: If they do not, it is not Dorina's fault because they were there before she made all the edits.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? A: I mean that's a personal opinion sort of deal but I think so.

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? A: Yes, many more than 2-3.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? A: The list is incredibly exhaustive. Yes, it does.
 * 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? A: Yes, it does, it has many headings and all of them are complete ideas or lists.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? A: This is also an area that Dorina did well, her hyperlinks are everywhere.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. Sounds lame but it is so complete that "Yes" is all I have to say about it. Yes it is complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The added content is incredibly organized. That is probably the biggest strength.
 * How can the content added be improved? At this point in the progression of the article the changes will mostly be preference based.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? ANIROD12345

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing Editing User:Anirod12345/Nora Marks Dauenhauer - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) Nora Marks Dauenhauer - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) Nora Marks Dauenhauer - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(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.)