User:Colind3607/Kitselas First Nation/LilianaCJ Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

@Colind3607


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Colind3607/Kitselas First Nation
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Kitselas First Nation

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello! Here's my peer review:

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - The preexisting lead (in the already published article, not this draft) seems to be quite short and there does not appear to be any attempts to update it, so consider making note of that.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - All of the information added seems to be directly related and relevant to the Kitselas First Nation.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, overall, the content seems to be up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - A few of the sections in the article are lacking information (the demographics section, specifically, it quite short) and could definitely be expanded upon. There could be an additional section added to talk specifically about the nation’s governing body (if any) since I’ve noticed many First Nations articles including such a section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Under the “Kitselas Treaty” section, you mentioned how the Canadian government took advantage of Native peoples, and I think that was a good problem to address (you might even expand a bit on it).

Tone and Balance

 * I s the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - Overall, I think you’ve maintained a neutral tone throughout the entire article, however, there is one sentence under the “Timeline” section that could be seen as a little bit biased: “... created policies that are meant to discriminate against Indians.”
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - No, I think you did a good job at writing the article in the same way you would a report (you stuck to stating the facts without including your own opinion or bias).

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - It seems like the majority of the content is backed by sources that are official Kinselas websites with the exception of the second source (which is referred to quite often) which is Slideshare and requires a subscription/registered account to access the slides.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? - Yes, the content seems to align with the cited sources, however, it might be too similar to the sources. I would recommend going through and rewording or maybe even completely rewriting some of the content, because it is very similar to what is in the source (it may be marked with plagiarism if it is too similar).
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Since many of the sources are directly from official tribal websites, I would say they come from diverse authors.


 * Check a few links. Do they work? - Yep, the links seem to be working (the one for Slideshare is the only one that is a bit iffy since you need to sign up/in to view the complete slideshow).

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - The content is overall well-written, however, some sections are a bit choppy and do not flow very well. The “Timeline” section is quite difficult to follow just because of the way it is laid out (a date followed by a short description), so I would suggest adding some filler info in between those sentences or maybe even break it up into smaller paragraphs.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - Spelling looks good.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - It seems well organized, though I would suggest one small change: remove “Kitselas” from the beginning of some of the titles (e.g. “Kitselas Land and Reserves” to “Land and Reserves”).

Images and Media

 * It appears that there are no images/media, maybe consider adding a few?

Overall Impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - The content definitely added some much needed information to the existing article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - The “Timeline” section is quite rich with dates which serves as a good background/history for the Kitselas First Nation.


 * How can the content added be improved? - Rewrite some of the content because a lot of it is too similar to what is written in the cited source, and expand on some of the sections (maybe add a section specifically for their governing body/council like I had mentioned before :)