User:Emma.Fagan/Native American peoples of Oregon/Schoenjr 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?
 * Emma.Fagan
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Emma.Fagan/Native American peoples of Oregon

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Not yet, but it look like they're planning on getting to it
 * 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?
 * Concise, could use more info

Lead evaluation
N/A, still using the existing lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, everything added looks like it relates closely to the Native American groups in Oregan
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, there is information up to 2020 that has been added.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Where there are gaps, you explained what you're going to put there, and I think you have a good understanding of the direction you're going in.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I believe your article tackles an equity gap, especially after seeing that there is very little in the current article about the 20th century. You've done a nice job keeping the focus on that, since that is what needs work.

Content evaluation
As a draft, I'm impressed with the content you have right now. I think that adding more to the restoration section would be very helpful, I was drawn to the table, and having more information on how land was reinstated could help add more to the narrative. Of course, if there aren't enough sources to add something about this, I understand.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * From what I can tell, you've done a really good job keeping everything balanced and neutral. I didn't feel like you were trying to sway the audience one way or another.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, at least none that jumped out at me.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think that sometimes the viewpoints of the native groups is more represented than that of the government passing these laws, but I don't think that's something you need to fix, since the Native American groups impacted by treaty breaking and laws are most certainly the focal point.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, despite focusing on things from a Native American perspective (which is unavoidable with this subject), you keep it as neutral in tone as you can

Tone and balance evaluation
You're doing a good job keeping a neutral tone in your writing!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I believe so, and 20 sources for the information added seems sufficient
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I checked the first few, they seem to work just fine

Sources and references evaluation
It all looks to be in order

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, I especially appreciate how you've divided up the sections, having smaller digestible parts makes it easier to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, and since the current version of the article gives a large amount of information on the Native Groups in Oregon before 1900, looking beyond that time frame and giving it the same amount of care works very well.

Organization evaluation
Very good so far!

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
Nothing has been added yet for images and media

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?
 * I believe you've found a good knowledge gap to fill in on Wikipedia
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Organization and clarity make the article easy to read through
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * There are places where some more information would give a clearer narrative, such as in the restoration section.

Overall evaluation
Great draft, looking forward to seeing the whole thing

The gaps you've left in the article look like they'll explore important avenues, and I think that will round out the paper nicely. Also try to make sure the sections are relatively even, although that might be something you look at closer to the end of the editing process.