User:Emma.Fagan/User:Marylecesne/sandbox/Emma.Fagan 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)
 * Marylecesne
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Marylecesne/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * This is a new page, and the lead accurately reflects the existing article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes!
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * somewhat - once the Indigenous Cultural Relevance section is filled, more information related to that could be added.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * nope
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * very concise but good!

Lead evaluation
I like what exists so far - it's accurate, informative, and a good summary. Following the existing style once further info is added should be good.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes, but could use more current references/examples if possible.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * yes - section on Indigenous Cultural relevance is missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * yes, and deals with misconceptions in representation.

Content evaluation
The added content here is good so far on all of the above points - once sections are filled out more this will be a good addition to misrepresentation of indigenous peoples in pop culture.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes, as much as it can be
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * none in particular - the Criticism section is good, but be careful language-wise in how you present the information.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * none that I noticed
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Overall it seems to point to this trope as a misrepresentation, but I don't believe this is necessarily a problem.

Tone and balance evaluation
Going forward, I would say to watch for balance issues with the Indigenous Cultural Relevance section - make sure it doesn't overbalance descriptions of the actual trope, but rather enhances them.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * only two sources are listed, which both seem fairly reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Not in my opinion - mainly could just use a wider variety of sources, including scholarly literature.
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes - the book is from 2014, which is recent enough.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * difficult to analyze with only two works
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * both do!

Sources and references evaluation
I'd love to see further research here, especially any journal articles/scholarly analysis related to the topic.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes, very much so.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * not that I noticed!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes!

Organization evaluation
No major comments here, the structure seems good.

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?

New Article Evaluation
None of the above are applicable yet, but I would definitely consider these when expanding this article.

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
I like what you have so far for this article - I hadn't thought about this as a common trope before, and presenting the history and various uses of it is a great addition to the knowledge base. Including a section on the cultural relevance of burial grounds to indigenous peoples will be a great addition and means of comparing the trope to reality. I'd love to see further citations of any journal articles/scholarly literature that studies this trope, if any, especially for the Criticism and Parody subsections (the Parody one could also be great to expand by describing some examples in pop culture!).