User:Desmondx2000/Pende people/Fmsrlyams Peer Review

{| class="wikitable" Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:
 * Peer review
 * Peer review

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?

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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?

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of "Homemaking"
 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources
Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.
 * }

General info[edit]
Fmsrlyams
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fmsrlyams/Kom_people_%28Cameroon%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Kom people (Cameroon)

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]
Lead Section: In this section I see that you reviewed some of the links that were provided and made not that they were inaccurate and needs to be corrected. I would to see the corrected versions along with some more information added in to give more weight. Incorporating some background on the capital, spiritual practices and beliefs could also be worth looking into to speak about the origins and how they came to be

Tone and Balance: From what I can gather your tone seems good but due to how little information is provided the tone feels uniformed in a lot places and that causes some confusion in fully understanding. What you added to the agriculture, economics, and spirituality section balanced out the visual format of the page.

Content: The content is brief, concise, and beneficial to the information you have. But that also could be touch up and refined

Sources: Their's a good mix of past and current sources which is good and we can see how the knowledge and research about them has evolved, but do I also think a few more sources could help give more weight to them and have more variety.

Organization: The layout was easy to follow along with although I think the pictures and how their arranged could be cleaned up and it will provide a much neater display.

Overall, you have a solid start and the information and revisions you've done far have been beneficial, but adding more context, background, and knowledge to these sections would be helpful to your additions in the future.

Evaluate the drafted changes [edit]
Note from FmsRilyAms: Somehow Desmondx2000's review of my article ended up in the page that I was supposed to use for my review of their article. I will be adding my review of the Pende people article that is being worked on by user Desmondx2000 below.

Lead: I think the lead could use some additional information, possibly just an overview of the sections that are in the article or that are going to be added to the article, and maybe some info that may be useful for someone who wants a quick overview on the Pende.

Content: The content added is concise and well-formatted. Maybe see about adding possible headers to help separate some of the information so it doesn't get overlooked and to make it easier for people looking for specific things within the page. I'd like to see more about their rituals and mask ceremonies as well as more general info on the values and traditions within the culture. There's a lot of pre-existing information on specific history that also may be able to be consolidated or reformatted to better fit the general overview of the page. Good, unbiased information.

Tone and Balance: Tone and balance are good, the only real problem I see is that there's a bit of a harsh transition between the older information and the new information added.

Sources and References: Lots of great sources from credible authors. There are some issues with the citation/reference number links, there have been some duplicates in the bottom reference section as well as having the two sections existing at the same time at two different points on the page. I think talking to Professor might help fix some of the citation/bib bugs.

Organization: This page was a little bit difficult to navigate at first because of the doubled information but I think overall your organization is good and just needs cleanup and formatting edits as well as headers.

The article is looking good content and source-wise. Once the formatting is fixed it's going to be easier to build from there.