User:Bryceklingonsmith/Thomas Tibbles/Wellsl4 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? (Bryceklingonsmith)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Bryceklingonsmith/sandbox

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.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, they did an excellent job with the introduction.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is fairly concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it is extremely relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, the content included was pertinent to the topic, i.e. Thomas Henry Tibbles.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This article does a great job at helping fill in one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. It talks a lot about an important activist during the relocation of the Ponca tribe and the ensuing legal battle. Native American history is generally underrepresented, and this article has done a great job at bringing light to different historical events.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I would like to see more of how Thomas Tibble's contributions as a journalist/ activist had repercussions for future activists and journalists. Did his work start a new kind of activism/journalism? Did those two things really go hand-in-hand before he did that? How has his work not only affected the Ponca tribe but also dealings with Native Americans in the future?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it does not. More information is shown in favor of Thomas Tibble and the Ponca tribe and not too much is shown against or any kind of criticism towards them, so maybe add something else there. Other than that, it appears unbiased.

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? As current as they can be. This event happened 150 or so years ago.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I see more sources pointing towards The Ponca Tribe vs Thomas Tibbles, so I would definitely add more sources to reflect the topic of the article, who is Thomas Tibbles.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The one link was private, so I couldn't access it, but the rest of the sources were from books/journals.

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? Hardly. A few times chief in Chief Standing Bear wasn't capitalized, but other than that it all looked really good grammatically.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the organization was very good in this article.

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


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

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? No.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I would include more sources, and definitely a broader range of sources than what was shown. They were all about the trial of Standing Bear, and I would include different sources just to include more historical context.
 * 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? It contains good section headings, but it definitely needs features citing similar articles, such as citing the article on Chief Standing Bear.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No, not at all.

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?