User:Caquaile/Native Hawaiians/Kdotlamar39 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? Caquaile
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Caquaile/Native Hawaiians

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I do not see a Lead section, but I see a well fleshed out introduction section.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The rest of the questions for this part are N/A as I am not seeing a Lead section before the table of contents/outline.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The added content is very relevant and does a superb job of providing more substantive context to the topic at hand.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is up-to-date and relevant.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nothing seems out of place or missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral and provides factual & meaningful accounts instead of subjective/biased content.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I do not thiink so.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content does not possess an agenda.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are several hyperlinks throughout the article that lead to other Wikipedia pages with the relevant information. However, I wasn't seeing many footnotes with references to secondary/non-Wikipedia sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All the links that I checked worked and led me to their respective Wikipedia pages.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is very well-written and free of errors as well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The outline at the beginning of the article is very organised and gives a clear breakdown of what is to come. the rest of the article is just as clean and straightforward as well.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? I did not see any added images that needed to be reviewed.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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 article feels fuller with what I have read. A lot of facts and details have been added that will give the reader a deeper insight into Native Hawaiians.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strength is that the new content is packed with helpful information and is very detailed/in depth.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content might be improved by including more external sources that don't come from Wikipedia. There are several great Wikipedia hyperlinks interspersed throughout the article but it could benefit from more references and citations to other sources.