User:Carolinecatterton/Native American Recreational Activities/Archietucker99 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? Caroline Catterton
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Native American Recreational Activities

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * There is no lead section so maybe consider adding that.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? It is!
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I felt like what I was reading was accurate and up to date!
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't think so.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? YES IT DOES!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? it was mostly neutral, i remember reading the word pure and purely a couple times, which adds voice but it doesn't sound super wikipedia-esque
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no.
 * 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. It is strictly informative

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? They look like good reliable and thorough sources.
 * Are the sources current? they are
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? perhaps not all of them.. might wanna check that out

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? I didn't notice any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? very very well organized I loved it!

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? yes they are informative and precise
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yup.
 * 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?
 * 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 is great! good work guys!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think this is a very unique and interesting topic! I find it important because it teaches the world more about indigenous culture!
 * How can the content added be improved? OH one thing is I would add links to other wikipedia articles through the article. Do you know what I'm talking about? Like when words are blue and you can either put definitions or links to other pages. It makes it look more legit and can be helpful!