User:CourtneyReko/Mbole people /Napor1me 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? -- CourtneyReko
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: -- "User:CourtneyReko/sandbox"

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? -- There was/is no lead. It is possible this step is being saved for later.
 * 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

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? -- Yes, the content added elevates the article in terms of society and art.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? -- Yes, the references seem to be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? -- There are certain aspects of culture, society, and art that could be expanded, but we weren't submitting full drafts yet.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? -- Yes, it maintains a neutral perspective of writing.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? -- No, the writing is all factual with no biased tones.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? -- No, there is quite a depth of knowledge on each tier/group of society and figures. Representation and representation through quantity of information provided are equal.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? -- No, the writing is all factual with no biased tones.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? -- Yes, all sources are credible.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? -- Yes, the articles and literature seem to be quite encompassing.
 * Are the sources current? -- The sources were written in the later half of the 20th century, which is pretty good for African art and culture.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? -- There is only one link, and it works fine.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? -- Content added is user-friendly and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? -- Only concern is to be consistent with when you use italics and capitalization for African vernacular.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? -- Content added falls under two categories, "Lilwa Society" and "Statues." The only way you could possibly break it down further is to have sub-headers of the different classes of of Lilwa Society when you talk about them.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media -- n/a


 * 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

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? -- Yes, article seems to be rounding out.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - Quite detailed! You did a good job of being thorough.
 * How can the content added be improved? Just expansion and fleshing out the other content categories.

Overall evaluation
Great start! If you accomplish all of your future editions with the same level of detail and finish as you did with these, the article will turn out very well and MUCH better than it was before.

~