User:J3nn!f3rros3/Act for the Government and Protection of Indians/Jcichoke 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) J3nn!f3rros3
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:J3nn!f3rros3/Act for the Government and Protection of Indians

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the additions are reflected.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, this was a very good job of being concise, yet having very good info also.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, and has a solid amount of information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is, it is very informative.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes it is.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes. It provides info as to legislation and how it affected Indigenous populations.

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.
 * 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?

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 they do
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, they included very diverse perspectives
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they work!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it is. The content is both extremely informative yet easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, it is well-written
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article has some sections currently, as well as good amount of text.

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? Yes it is. They did a great job of adding more substance and how indigenous peoples are affected by the legislation.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The in depth history of the Legislation is very informative and provides the reader with insights that are not necessarily spoken in popular culture.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content overall is really good, but I would try to add headings to improve the overall clarity and structure. Overall, I think it is a very good job!