User:Inayasingh/Muscogee language Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Wikipedia's


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Muscogee language
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Muscogee language

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A- this article was not updated by any of my peers.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes- it essentially introduces the language and gives some of the other names for it. You can tell what the article is going to be about just from the first sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes! The lead for this article addresses questions such as who speaks the Muscogee language/which parts of the U.S. it is spoken in, what the other names for the language are, how many speakers of the language are still around today, and a bit about its history. Pretty solid lead, in my opinion. There is also a table of contents.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It does go more into detail about the history and whatnot of the Muscogee language than the actual article does, which focuses more on the actual grammar/syntax of the language. I think there should be more information that talks about the people/culture/history as well.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I found it to be relatively concise, not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, everything that is within the article has to do with the Muscogee language and its speakers/people.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Seems like it, yes. The oldest article cited was written in 2001, but a lot of the citations listed were written as recently as 2017.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? As I mentioned in the prior section, I think perhaps there should be more information about the Muscogee people/culture/history of the language instead of just mostly the phonology and orthography of the language.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Well, it does address a language mainly spoken by Native American peoples, so I would say it does relate to historically underrepresented populations/topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes- it is unbiased. There are really only objective facts listed within the article, no opinions or any kind of discernible tone to the article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not that I can see.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Again, not that I can see.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not at all- it just lists facts.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? N/A- there is no "new" content that has been added. The article itself has a lot of citations though.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Seems like it, yes. The oldest article cited was written in 2001, but a lot of the citations listed were written as recently as 2017.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Seems like it!
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) I think the article provided quite an extensive list of peer-reviewed articles- there are nearly 10 of them and then about 30 regular sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? They do, yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I can see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, there is a table of contents in the lead and it follows that organization throughout the article.

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 a few pictures.
 * Are images well-captioned? Most of them are, but one of them does not have a caption at all (the picture of the sign that says "Thlopthlocco Creek Tribal Town").
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe most of them do, but again- one of them is not captioned.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, I would say so.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? N/A- again, there is no new information that has been added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? N/A
 * How can the content added be improved? N/A