User:EZEKEATHAN/Walker Calhoun/Ej2022 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) EZEKEATHAN


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:EZEKEATHAN/Walker Calhoun


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Walker Calhoun

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Hello,

Your article is a good start, but there are many edits you may want to make. The content has many grammatical errors. Things are not capitalized as they should be and not spelled correctly. At one point the article states something happened in 1890, but I think it's supposed to say 1980. These issues can talk away for the clarity of the article as the reader tries to think around them.

Additionally, the lead section does not appear changed from the original article. However, the lead is concise and largely gets the introductory information across. I think the lead section should be edited to convey more of what you put in the article. Perhaps just an extra sentence would do the trick. Additionally, his role as a medicine man that is address in the Lead section is not elaborated on. It could be beneficial to either find more information on his role as a medicine man and place it later in the article.

The sources are not very diverse, and some are 20+ years old. If there are newer and further articles on this subject, bringing them into play would be beneficial.

Overall, the article draft does expand on the previous stub article with more important details. The information accurately shows what is in the sources. The links both for the sources and in the article work. The content added is related to this topic and is up to date. The topic is in one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. The content is presented neutrally and does not focus on unnecessary details. The new content is all backed up appropriately, but there is not the appropriate formatting on the headers.

Good job!