User:Hauen1jk/Bamileke people /CourtneyReko 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? Hauen1jk
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hauen1jk/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, the lead is left the same in this draft.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead in the actual article does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No it does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead in the article is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is, it talks about the Bamileke masquerades which is not mentioned in the actual article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? One reference is from 1998 which is a little out of date while the other is in 2008, so that is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content that doesn't belong. The actual article is pretty detailed already so they did a good job finding something that wasn't mentioned in the original article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it doesn't.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, everything is sourced accordingly.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are only two sources so I would say that it is not super thorough.
 * Are the sources current? One is, yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is well written and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, it doesn't.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There is only one section.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images included.
 * Are images well-captioned? N?A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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?

N/A because this is not a new article and exists already.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It does improve the overall quality because it adds some insight on the masquerades.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is written clearly and concisely and adds important content.
 * How can the content added be improved? It could probably use some more sources so that it can add more to the original article.

Overall evaluation
They did a good job of adding new and important information to the article, although, I think there is more that can be included.