User:Bwana Kitambi/Haya people/Alachulean Peer Review

I reviewed a comparison between the most current version of the Haya people article and the first to show significant editing by Bwana Kitambi.

The Haya people article has been expanded upon quite significantly, showing quality investigative work culminating in a published article that remains relatively free of bias and representative of modern research.

Lead
The Lead has been expanded upon significantly, adding information previously not included in the article. This also happens to be information that is not repeated anywhere in the article. While I personally like the decision to clear up the linguistic identity of the Haya in the Lead of the article, and did something similar in my own, it seems that Wikipedia would rather that we use the Lead to provide a description of the article's sections. The added information to the Lead, while according to Wikipedia standards is not in the right place, is concise and an overall quality addition to the article.

The introductory sentence of the Lead itself is of good length and concise nature, and does a good job of introducing the reader to the Haya people.

Content
Content added is both relevant and current. There is a good spread of information from sources dating between early studies and modern ones. There doesn't seem to be any information missing or unnecessarily included in the main body of the article. A few sections could use revision. The most apparent of these is Haya history and kingdoms: for which the second half could use revision.

Tone and Balance
The added content to the Haya people article seems to be neutral, without significant biases or over/underrepresented viewpoints.

Sources and References
The References section seems to be sourced from reputable places. Sources are very thorough, and are included to accompany each fact that would require one throughout the article. These sources are current when possible, and dated when necessary or to back up modern sources. All checked links seem to work, although most sources do not seem to have links associated with them. If possible, adding links through ISBN numbers or DOI numbers would be a good addition.

Organization
Most additions to this article are well-written and easy to read. There are a few exceptions to this, however. Organization is mostly good, although one or two sections could be more better placed or worked into others. The best example of this is the European Colonialism section, which could maybe be moved into the History section. European Colonialism could also use a rewrite, and perhaps a little more supporting information. At the end of the Kingdoms (19th c. to 1963) subsection, there are lists of kingdoms that could also be better worked into their respective timeframes. Or perhaps, these lists could just be deleted, as they're already included in these timeframes.

Images and Media
Images in the most current version of the article are direct improvements to previous versions of the article. What I would have really liked to see was a map, perhaps of the greater geographical region or to depict historical movements or changes. The image included in the article is well-captioned, but could perhaps be more effectively used as part of an infobox.

Overall impressions
The Haya people article has been improved upon greatly, by information that reflects current research while not developing bias. The most significant recommended edits would be to add additional media if possible (with respect to the disappointing lack of wikimedia content for all of our articles) and moving a few sections around. Some sections and sentences require rewriting. While I would have originally recommended merging the Kingship and Society sections, I've decided that I do like the distinction based on included information.

The concluding section on the Uganda-Tanzanian war could also use some additional information, while it is implied that the Haya were affected, the outcome of these events is not explored.