User:Connormccutcheon/Onondaga people/Jckilpinen 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? (provide username)
 * I am reviewing the draft by Connormccutcheon.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Connors article is currently in his sandbox at the following link: User:Connormccutcheon/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * In Connor's sandbox, I don't see a Lead section.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * N/A
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * N/A

Lead evaluation
There is no lead section to evaluate. However, after reading the Lead section on the existing page (Onondaga people) I think that there is a bit of overlap between Connor's "Presitge Factors" section and the existing Lead section. You could try to combine some aspects of those sections to update the existing page.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * As far as I can tell.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not that I saw.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes. There does not seem to be an agenda or biased perspective in Connor's writing.
 * 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?
 * I don't believe so.

Tone and balance evaluation
I think Connor did a great job of maintaining a neutral perspective in his writing, which can be difficult to do.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Some of the sources, primarily those by Beauchamp may be primary sources rather than secondary sources. His Onondaga Notes journal entry begins with a firsthand account of the White Dog Feast. Because this isn't a secondary source it may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. That said, the information Connor presents from that source seems to be descriptive, not persuasive. I'm not sure how best to handle the 2 sources by WM Beauchamp.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Without having done my own research on the Onondaga people, I can't say for certain. With only 2 secondary sources, it seems very plausible that these sources are not wholly reflective of the available literature.
 * Are the sources current?
 * One of the sources is contemporary (2016). Another is from 1965, so the information may be accurate, but may not account for later discoveries (Having not researched the Onondaga people myself, I don't know if such discoveries exist, but they could?) The other 2 sources, as noted above, are from the 19th century.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * There weren't any links in the references, but I was able to find the articles by searching their titles on JSTOR

Sources and references evaluation
I think that this draft/article would benefit from additional sources to either corroborate some of this information or to elaborate a bit more on it. As it pertains to in-text citations, there are a lot. If you have a paragraph which draws entirely from 1 source, I believe you only need 1 citation for the paragraph (unless you use a direct quote at some point, that would require its own citation). For example, instead of 8 citations in the "Customs" section, I think you'd only need 1 at the end because the entire paragraph comes from the same source and there are no direct quotes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I think some of your writing seems a bit choppy. At times it felt less like reading a paragraph so much as reading notes or bullet points.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The last sentence in the "Prestige Factors" section needs a comma after the word Iroquois.
 * The phrasing of your 2nd sentence in "Customs" seems awkward. Perhaps swap "do" for "practice."
 * You sometimes switch between writing in the past and present tenses and it is not clear why, or if it is correct to do so.
 * The next to last sentence in "Customs" begins "This day there are three days for religious services..." which does not make sense.
 * The "Culture" section reads like bullet points and does not use complete sentences. I checked the cited reference and this section seems to be copied directly from the document. If you use this information in your final draft, either use quotations marks to denote that it's a direct quote, or paraphrase sufficiently.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content seems to be sectioned fairly well. I think that things like Sports or Customs could be considered subsections of Culture, so those sections could be combined.

Organization evaluation
The organization of sections seems OK to me, although some sections could probably be combined. The writing has room for improvement, and I think that you should double check your entire draft to be sure you've clearly marked things that are direct quotes. I think that is the most important organizational note I have.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A
 * 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

Images and media evaluation
No images or media were added.

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?
 * N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * N/A

New Article Evaluation
Connor is adding to an existing article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I think that the information Connor added makes the article more complete. There is very little in the existing article about the customs and culture of the Onondaga, which is Connor's focus.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Connor's added content pertains to an area overlooked in the existing page and one that is important to understanding the Onondaga people.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More/better sources to confirm the information listed and elaborate on it.
 * Make the writing a bit less choppy.
 * Double check for direct quotations.

Overall evaluation
I think that Connor's draft is a good start, but still need a bit of work before it's ready to be published to the existing article.