User:CourtneyPhelps/Mambila people /Ryal1ll 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? CourtneyPhelps
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:CourtneyPhelps/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The Lead does not appear to have new content. The introductory sentence states where the Mambila people live but it could be expanded a bit to elaborate on who they are. The lead could also benefit from briefly describing the article's major sections (Identification, Location - maybe change to Geography?, Disputes, and Climate). The information is concise and briefly describes where they live and how they call themselves.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic of Mambila art. It seems like you have focused on two groups of objects that are important and available in Mambila art. In addition, the content appears to be up to date. There doesn't seem to be anything missing. However, I might explain what the Sauga association is since you mention it but I'm not sure what it is. If there is enough information, you could even add a section on that association or the association's art. I liked the first sentence couple sentences about the art trading, it gives background for the art objects and why there might not be a ton of information.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the content is neutral. There do not appear to be any biased or overrepresented viewpoints or claims. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All new content is backed up by reliable sources. The sources are good and come from African Arts which is a good place to find relevant sources. All of the new sources are somewhat current, but given the limited amount of sources, the sources are good. I clicked on them and they worked. They took me to JSTOR.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The content that you wrote was well written. I could understand it easily! There were not grammatical errors that I found. I think that maybe one you finalize the information, you could play with the organization of the art section to separate some of the information. Maybe you could talk about the art and its distinctions underneath the heading of "Art" and make a subheading 1 of "Wooden Figures" and talk about tadep and kike figures.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There were no images added to the article.

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?

New Article Evaluation
This was not a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall the content improved the quality of the article because there was not even an art section to begin with on your article's original page. The strengths of the content are that you have found good sources which focus on a group of objects that have been well-documented. You have found some interesting information, especially about the yearly repainting of objects. I think to further improve the article, you could try to find more information on the association you mentioned or even on the sacred enclosures that some people can see. It might also help if you found a picture or two of the objects you talk about to help illustrate what you are writing about. Once you have found all the information you want to include, I also think that the use of some subheadings would help organize the information. But overall, good job!