User:Brown34s/Zulu people /Nicole Lenz 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? Brown34s
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Zulu people User:Brown34s/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead hasn't been updated yet or changed from the one previously used.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? It's concise, which is good, but I don't think it covers everything from the rest of the updated article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It mentions some.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Some are from the 21st century, but the user mentions in their 'evaluation of the current page' that most of the sources used by the previous author weren't very credible.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Somewhat. It's hard to tell because missing citations for some of the history sections.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Didn't appear to be
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * 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? There aren't a lot of citations. I think the first author heavily relied on other wiki pages as their sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The draft has a lot of great info but I dont see any citations behind the information being given. I'm assuming there's more information because of all the wiki pages being linked. These pages have sources of there own.
 * Are the sources current? Yes (according to bibliography)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Checked a few. Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? So far, yes. However, I'm not sure if the charts at the end are the way sources should be added? I'm not quite sure.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Not really. There aren't any dates or mention of the source
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No source information
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

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? yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I don't think all the sources have been listed or represented, but it is only the developing stages of the article.
 * 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? Yes
 * 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? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Adding more about the arts will definitely improve the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? Putting more citations and double-sourcing some information. The beginning feels like it relies too much on other wiki articles as sources. Need to look at the sources used in those articles and cross examine.

Overall evaluation
Great so far! Very interesting to read.