User:Bh597/Hassanamisco Nipmuc/Shadamss 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? 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?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead has been updated to reflect the new content about Hassanamisco Christianity. The topic sentence could be edited by adding in the name of the reservation for clarity or by moving the second sentence about native geography to follow the "fresh water people" in the first sentence and then combining the acre fact with the annual Indian fairs in the second sentence. The lead should also include a sentence about King Phillips war since it is a large section In the article. The lead is relevant and concise and overall a good lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
All content is relevant, new content includes expanded historical information, conversion to christianity, King Phillips War, John Milton and Cisco Homestead which all involve the Hassanamisco Nipmuc. There are opportunities to add more content that I will bullet point below. The book “Faithful bodies: Performing Religion and Race in the Puritan Atlantic” by Heather Miyano Kopelson can be found online through the library website and if you search it for Hassanamisco there is a lot of interesting information/ context for race and religion and the Nipmuc/ other Northeast Native Americans. The article addresses Wikipedia equity gap topics related to historically underrepresented populations by focusing on the struggles and history of the Hassanamisco Nipmuc. Here are some areas you could elaborate on:

1. If you can find more information about the seven families that returned after King Phillips War you can create a separate section about those families with your information about Sarah Robins and discuss how they have influenced the land/ if their current descendants are known or influential.

2. How was the land sold to the Englishmen? Was it a broken treaty, stolen due to the lost war?

3. In the John Milton section you could add in information or just reference the “one-drop” type of racial rule of the time that led to his statement.

4. Maybe include reference to Native American Assimilation policies since you discuss the praying towns which came before the more widespread assimilation policies of the late 1700s.

5. Love the discussion about intermarriage. Since they communicated with African Americans and even bought slaves as husbands, perhaps some of them previously owned them? I know there were a good amount of tribes that had African slaves.

6. Any strong relationships or rivals with other tribes nearby? When the Hassanamisco began marrying other Nipmuc people were there any cultural or political shifts? Maybe you could list the names of some of the other Nipmuc tribes or explain more information about any shared traditions that the Nipmuc people have.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral and not persuasive. Every sentence seems to be factually based and there is no heavy leaning toward a particular position. There isn’t any strong emotional language or a bias towards the Hassanamisco or against the assimilation tactics. No viewpoints are overrepresented but a viewpoint that you might be able to highlight is the federal recognition struggle that they have faced. It seems egregious for the 2004 decision to have been based on an 1861 report that upheld multiracial marriages as illegal. As long as you find peer reviewed facts to support that viewpoint I think expanding it would be a nice way to show their continued struggle.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
All of the content is backed up by sources that are peer-reviewed and fitting to Wikipedia's standards. I believe that they are thorough given that there is not a lot of information about this tribe and the author has presented a detailed timeline of events. The sources are current with the older ones being about historical content about the past. There are over 10 sources which seems appropriate for an article of this size. I would recommend including the page numbers used for the sources that repeat throughout the article but It is a diverse spectrum of authors since there are over 10 unique authors. I do not believe any of the authors are historically marginalized but the content that is cited does touch on marginalization and inequity where possible.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is definitely clear and easy to read. The sections are all relevant but it would be nice to see a section on the families/ important historical figures where the Sarah Robins information could be moved to along with any new information you find about the original 7 families/ later multiracial families. Other than the organization of the lead that I have already mentioned, I would add the information about the 2004 nation denial to the current status section since that is after the 1980 petition and move the line about Inter Nipmuc marriages from the history section to the intermarriage section. I haven't found any large grammar or spelling errors but will continue to monitor your article if any pop up after you've edited the article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
No new images were added but I would recommend keeping the two original ones since they relate to the topic. Other images that would be helpful if you can find any are of the reservation/ homestead, anything relevant from King Philip’s War like the attack on Brookfield or an image of someone from the tribe.

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?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


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

Overall evaluation
The content that has been added is clear, interesting and has made the article significantly more complete. The strengths of the content are the addition of Christianity which is important since their land was once a prayer town and the expanded historical information of their demographics overtime. What can be improved is the organization that I mentioned as well as adding some of the details I suggested in the content section. Overall, you did a great job improving this article and it now offers a much more intimate look into the Hassanamisco Nipmuc people and their history. Let me know if I can be of any help!