User:Bh597/Hassanamisco Nipmuc/Caquaile 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? (provide username) Bh597
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Bh597/Hassanamisco Nipmuc

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 it does and it also provides translations and spatial occupation which was very helpful for moving my mind into a space to better comprehend!!!
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It includes a brief view that the land formerly occupied and currently occupied are very different, and therefore, insinuates some of the historical aspects discussed later on. Not sure how blatant that should be, but overall it seems pretty good.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Very concise and to the point

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is very relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, all contact fits the historical retelling and situating of the Nipmuc people into the framework of history and federal policy
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, but I there is some gaping in the history that may just be from lack of sources. A big jump from then to now.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, but is also engages critically and refrains from partiality
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, very balanced and finds a way to include macro-concepts without breaking them down into complex subcategories that can give rise to more nuanced bias
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

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, but there are historical sources that seem relevant
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, with some of the sources coming from the Nipmuc people themselves
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Very well written, and informative without being overly complex
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Very well organized and goes from historical to modern, which provides a nice linear progression for the reader

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
 * 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? Some overlap, but the article seems to pull enough from other sources with a solid portion not existing in the Wikiverse, so it feels more relevant than an addition
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Absolutely. The writer has really brought to life the story of the Nipmuc people and shown their interactions with the US. Could more pre-US and more history from the mid-settler period (which is still ongoing)
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strength is its format and ability to linearly trace history while adding new perspectives
 * How can the content added be improved? The length, because the Nipmuc people exist before US so a least a portion of that story should come through.