User:Chloponyart391/Mumuye people/Quinnmac99 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Chloponyart391


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chloponyart391/Mumuye_people?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Mumuye people

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)


 * 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?
 * Not fully but they did add some information on how they organize themselves into groups.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No but it is missing some information
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Maybe too concise, could add more information/ an overview of what the article will cover but the information that was added is helpful.
 * Content Guiding questions
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it is relevant, it adds more information on artistic traditions.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Some of the content is up to date and uses information from an article published in 2002 and seems to be a reliable source. The other two sources are from the eighties and seem reliable but have the possibility of being outdated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is definitely still some content missing but they've done a good job at filling in more specifics on artistic tradition and making that section cover specifics on sculpture and there uses in divination and healing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes the article discusses the Mumuye people who are an underrepresented ethnic group in Africa.


 * Tone and Balance Guiding questions
 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes the content added is neutral and discusses information discovered about figural sculpture and that are said to be distinctive to the Mumuye people.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Yes, as of right now most of the information is focused on this groups languages and traditions specifically in art traditions such as figural sculpture whereas some of the other sections are still underdeveloped.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.
 * Sources and References Guiding questions
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?


 * Yes the new content is linked to a reliable reference.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes it does a good job at creating a synopsis without directly repeating information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There are five new sources used which is good and I assume more will be added in the future. The other source in there before editing seems to be removed.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes and no, some of the sources are from the 2000's (11 and 02) but others are from the eighties.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors?
 * Three of the sources are from the same people and two are from separate authors
 * Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * There are more sources out there and I am assuming they will use them in the future when more work is done on the article. The sources that are there seem reliable.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes
 * Organization Guiding questions
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?


 * Yes, it does a good job summarizing without repeating
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, not that I caught
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the new information is located in the right category.
 * Images and Media Guiding questions
 * If your peer added images or media   Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?


 * No Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A
 * For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?


 * Yes, there is more information on the art tradition section and I feel like I have a better grasp on their practices than I did from reading the original article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The information is well organized and does a good job at summarizing without repeating information directly. The content is organized and easy to read.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More content would be the best way to improve this.