User:Johns9ea/Ibibio people /Ryal1ll 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? Johns9ea
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Johns9ea/sandbox

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 has not been updated to reflect new content from my knowledge. The lead's introductory sentence (The Ibibio people are a coastal people in southern Nigeria) could be expanded a bit to describe the article's topic a bit more. The lead is concise but could benefit from a few minor changes like adding a brief description of the article's major sections (origin, geography, religion, art, etc.).

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?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant and up to date. The information added is mostly about the Ibibio masking tradition. There does not appear to be missing content. Later, I might try to put all the information into separate paragraphs instead of a list. I do have a small question - in this sentence : "While the Ibibio are not known for metalworking, there is a significant number of craftspeople making this type of art to be sold." Are the craftspeople you refer to Ibibio or another group?

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 takes a neutral standpoint. There are not claims that appear heavily biased or overrepresented. There is no attempt at persuasion.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All of the content has been backed up by new sources. The sources appear to be thorough - two of them are from African Arts, an important journal in the field of African art. Some of the sources are current and some of them a little less current. But given that the amount of sources on this topic might be limited, these sources are good! I clicked on a few links and they worked. I was taken to JSTOR for the original article.

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
The content was paraphrased well in a way that was easy to understand. The content did not have any grammatical or spelling errors that I noticed. One area for improvement would be the overall organization of the information. I said earlier to try to pull together the information into paragraphs instead of lists. That would help with organization. I also think that an addition reorganizing headings and subheadings might help. Possibly you could have "Art" as a heading with info about general art (masks, woodcarvings, raffia, etc), "Masking Tradition" as a subheading 1 about more specific details about masks, and then "Function in Secret Societies" as a subheading 2.

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
There were no images or media added.

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
This was not a new article evaluation.

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 of the article greatly improved the art section once has been condensed into paragraphs. The article as a whole is much more complete than it was before with the short 3 sentences about art. A strong point of your draft was the content of what you added. It seems like there was a lot of research done and time put into to paraphrasing this information in your own words so that you could help other people understand it. I think the content is good, and would only be enhanced with some time spent organizing it in a way that makes sense to you and the viewer.