User:Emma.Fagan/User:Peterpietri/Nacotchtank/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)
 * Peterpietri
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Peterpietri/Nacotchtank

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes - decide on use of past or present tense though.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * not that I noticed
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * concise with a reasonable amount of detail

Lead evaluation
Excellent lead section! It summarizes the article well.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes - all content is related to the Nacotchtank people.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes, it reflects the existing knowledge and history at present
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * there's a random "See Also" section that's empty at the bottom of the page, but that may be unintentional.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * yes, it expands the knowledge base of indigenous history in the D.C. area.

Content evaluation
Well-researched and thorough! Maybe check on the headers at the bottom to see if the "See Also" is necessary.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes, for the most part - the tone is informative. Check on the history section; some phrases seem slightly emotionally charged ("encroach," "avenge," etc.)
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * none in particular
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no, there's a good balance between colonial and indigenous perspectives here.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * nope!

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, good job in keeping neutrality and balance throughout this article! See first comment for possible changes.

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?
 * yes, very much so
 * Are the sources current?
 * most are, some historical documents are old because they're primary sources (perfectly understandable)
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * it's hard to tell, but there does seem to be a decent variety in terms of occupation/source type.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes!

Sources and references evaluation
Excellent and thorough research! There does seem to be a duplicate References section; maybe keep only the "reflist"/footnotes template if possible.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes, nothing feels too dense.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * A few sentences read awkwardly (for example, the second to last sentence in the first lead paragraph), but overall things look excellent.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes! the Geography section could potentially be broken up into smaller sections for easier reading.

Organization evaluation
The logical flow of the article makes sense, and it's very well-written.

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?
 * very much so - the contrast with the original article is huge and impressive.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * content is well-researched and synthesized, and the article feels very high-quality.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * see comments above, but in general look out for wordiness in some phrases.

Overall evaluation
I enjoyed your draft article! It's very well-researched and addresses many of the knowledge gaps in the existing article. The organization of the article makes sense and flows well - no complaints there. I would be careful of using more emotionally-charged language in the History section - while it's very subtle, some phrases may give an impression of bias. The Geography section is great, but is just long enough that it could be broken up into a couple of subsections, possibly between the second and third paragraphs. I'm also not sure if this was intentional or not, but there's a "see also" heading without any content below it at the end of the article. Overall, this article will be a great addition to the indigenous history of the D.C. area - maybe there's a way you can tie it into other existing articles related to modern D.C.!