User:Emma.Fagan/Native American peoples of Oregon/Chief Lucy 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) Emma.Fagan
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

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?
 * 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?
 * 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 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?

Overall evaluation
Chief Lucy Peer Review:

I like the topic choice. I think it is well-suited to be expanded because there is not currently an in-depth examination on the Native Peoples' of Oregon, their histories, and the relationships that exist today. I agree that you can expand the lead to include history and contemporary tribes, and would make sure to include mention of any controversies or negotiations that have happened or that are ongoing to frame the depth of your article.

I would say that as you go into the history, anything you can find that talks about the groups that held the land before colonization would be good, as well as brief mentions of cultural aspects so that the reader gets a better understanding of the native perspective prior to European arrival. I would also agree with your thought that you should expand on the restoration section. Talk about why they pushed for it, what their points were, as well as the POV of the US (also probably watch neutrality in this section).

I think your discussion of representation and relations between native peoples of Oregon and the US government are good. It highlights the lack of representation without being biased. I also like the areas you’re looking on adding more into. When you think about downsides to gaming, make sure to watch neutrality as that’s a place that could be easier to sound biased without meaning to.

I feel like you need some information on brief backgrounds about the different tribes and customs, etc. Or, if there are already pages for each group, maybe link those (as you have) but then make sure those pages are informed. If that is outside of your scope its understandable.

Your citations all look good and like they are from reliable sources. Your neutrality / the neutrality of the article so far seems good –  just watch in those few places I noted above as you begin to write. I would definitely try to ensure you get some native viewpoints as well as US or outsider input to maintain balance when discussing the government-government relations or the rights and environmental concerns. It could also be interesting to have an area on how the relationship has changed over the years and why it has changed.

On the whole, I feel like you’re in a good place with the article. I look forward to seeing it as it is fleshed out and completed.

~Chief Lucy