User:CCNorthfield/Chickasaw/Commonsj Peer Review

General info
Nat McDermott
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iUxHgxhD9WI4YFUTcsNVMCHae9eMRoWa_H6ei4mXd0I/edit?usp=sharing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Chickasaw

Lead
No, the lead has not yet been updated, but given the sections that are added, I don't think this is strictly necessary. The original article's lead could stand to have some of its language clarified. Currently the lead does not include any outline of the major sections of the article. The last paragraph in particular could stand to be in its own section/subsection.

Content
Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic. I am a little confused where each of these subsections is supposed to live in the article. Does war go under history or somewhere else? I think the original article is lacking a lot of information about culture. This could stand to be its own section, and the additions you have added would fit in nicely in that new section. One big thing that you should make sure you do before adding this to Wikipedia is adding citations, and preferably multiple citations per paragraph. Right now, I cannot make a determination about whether or not the information you have added is up to date because I don't know where you got the information.

When you say that the Chickasaw only had a population of around 5,000, I feel like I am lacking context for this statement. At what time was this true? Was it always true?

I really like that you added a primary quote. I know that usually quoting stuff in Wikipedia is bad practice, but in this case I think it makes a lot of sense as it is from a primary source.

The Choctaw section shares some overlap with the Culture section from the original article. The information you have added integrates really nicely with the information already there (it complements it well).

A couple notes about other changes that could be made to the article
The History section includes a block quote that should be paraphrased instead. This is one potential edit that you could make that would improve this article. I really like that the History section includes information about the Chickasaw oral history, and if you could find more information like this, I think this is another improvement you could make.

Neutrality
In the war section, the content sounds like it is only coming from outside sources describing the Chickasaw a couple hundred years ago. I think the information is good, and I really appreciate you looking for primary sources. However, I think this section could possibly benefit from more perspectives.

Final Thoughts

 * 1) The article does a good job describing the history of the Chickasaw and their relationship with the United States. There is extensive information on various treaties.
 * 2) The biggest change that I would recommend is adding a culture section and perhaps reorganizing information.