User:Brown34s/Zulu people /Almmapp 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) Brown34s
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Brown34s/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead wasn't updated, however, it could use some work. it is short in length and information and could be stronger.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead is exactly one sentence. It does introduce the content, but it should be extended.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, it does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the lead is the only place in the article that mentions the Zulu's population.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very under-detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, but this information could be expanded on in both sections edited. Also, visual aids would help.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Not necessarily due to the source being from 1994.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content itself is fine overall, but the main purpose of the Reed Dance is not really explained. In addition, the page would benefit from using sources that are more up to date. Also, the last sentence of the Clothing section sounds a bit copy-and-paste in wording.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, there are no personal/bias views present.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The use of one source for both sections doesn't allow for multiple viewpoints. therefore, another source would be helpful.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not at all.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the source is a book facing on the traditions and artistic culture of the Zulu.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current?  No, it is from 1994. 
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There are no available links other than the source citation, but that takes me to a sandbox-like template.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is easy to read, but it is very redundant.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? "The various styles of beadwork develops a relationship between the designer and wearer, also between the wearer and audience ." The second part might as well be another sentence. "The Umhlanga is not purely for a time of dance, but the King takes advantage of this event to speak to the youth of the nation and to address political issues as well." This could be separated into two sentences.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? For the amount of information added, it is organized well.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images.
 * 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?
 * 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?  The content added has the potential to really benefit the article, but it just needs a bit more work and more updated source content. 
 * What are the strengths of the content added?  It added an element to the article that was not present before: a view of the artistic part of the society's culture. 
 * How can the content added be improved?  More content should be added. More updated sourcing would be beneficial. Work on sentence structure and lessening redundancy.