User:Hln24/Mae Timbimboo Parry/Adampierce012 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)  Hln24
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hln24/Mae Timbimboo Parry

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?

Lead evaluation
The lead of this article is very good. It is concise and to the point, while expressing well the topic of the article. The lead does talk a little bit about the different sections of the article, but could maybe describe the sections a little bit more than it does. After reading the lead of this article, I understood well what the article would be about.

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?

Content evaluation
The content in this article is relevant to the topic, and is all focused on the life and accomplishments of Mae Timbimboo Parry. The content is up to date and it includes a good amount of information about her. The article does talk about topics that are historically underrepresented, such as the Shoshone Indians in the state of Utah.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content of this article is neutral, as it focuses on stating facts about Mae Timbimboo Parry, not giving opinions as to who she was or whether what she did was good or bad. There is no persuasion in this article, it seems to talk mainly about the topic and the impact that the person had. It was solid in the fact that it stated well the accomplishments of Mae Timbimboo Parry and described her life, without trying to convince the audience that she was a good person or a bad person.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
There are many articles to back-up the topic and the information, which helps the audience see that there are many viewpoints within the article. They are good articles that are focused on the life of Mae Timbimboo Parry and provide current information. The only thing I see is that there are a few articles that are written from the same sites or are repeated in the bibliography which could be fixed. Other than that, the article are solid and provide good and reliable information.

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?

Organization evaluation
This article is very clear and to the point. It is easy to understand and it is very well organized into sections that talk about different facets of the life of Mae Timbimboo Parry. There are a few errors that could be fixed, such as the spelling of a few words, so I would just say to read it over thoroughly and correct those small errors.

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
It does include a couple images that help the reader understand better what is happening in the article, and they have good captions that describe how they relate to the text. The images are laid out well and in a way that corresponds to the writing. It would be good if an image of Mae Timbimboo Parry was included (if there are images of her) to help the reader get a better idea of who she was.

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
The article does have multiple secondary sources that are reliable, and they do represent much of the information that can be found on this subject. It does include section headings and references to the to sources. I do not see that it is linked to other articles quite yet, but I do not think it is.

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
The content in this article is very good and can be easily understood by the audience reading it. It has many strengths, such as good section division and organization, multiple sources to back it up, as well as an unbiased/ neutral viewpoint that does not try to persuade the reader in any direction. A few things I found in this article that could be improved were spelling errors, as well as the repetition of some sources in the Bibliography. Just a few adjustments in these parts of the article and it will be very good, as it already is a very well written and organized article.