User:JuanSanchezHist15A/David Salmon (tribal chief)/Greennm1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? JuanSanchezHist15A
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:JuanSanchezHist15A/David Salmon (tribal chief)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * David Salmon (tribal chief) 2
 * David Salmon (tribal chief) 2

Evaluate the drafted changes
The article is in a position where it has a great foundation and start, but it can be improved upon. For your lead, I believe that the current article already consists of a summary for a lead, but that can be incorporated into your lead that you currently have on your sandbox page. Maybe consider combining the two or distinguishing more specifically the purpose of the lead on the current main article versus your lead on the sandbox page. I believe your lead is more concise and focused versus the current article's lead, but do make sure that in your lead, you should try to give a brief description of the major article sections, such as when you mention "Early Life" later on, you can mention that very briefly in your lead. Same can go for Position of Chief, Contributions, Personal Faith and Beliefs, etc.

The content that you have so far is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. It is also seemingly neutral and has no bias or heavily leaning in one direction. Since your content is very neutral, I do believe that you aren't overrepresenting or underrepresenting one single topic and I believe your work to be excellent in terms of not needing to change any content.

For your sources, there are a plethora of current sources and archived sources, and after looking through them in relation to the content you presented, they all seem reliable, especially when including secondary sources. I believe most of your sources to be secondary, which does help with neutrality in your content. There are a few primary sources, but I believe these to be a good starting point, and then backing up the claims with secondary sources would be ideal (if you were to do this throughout the article). The content does accurately portray what the cited sources say, so nothing is being made up, the sources are current and thorough, they are seemingly written by a diverse spectrum of authors, and the links work. I haven't checked to see if other sources were more reliable or if there were different ones possible, but I did see that JuanSanchezHist15A is using several primary sources that directly link to the chief, which does give information that's directly related to the topic at hand, regardless of it not being a secondary source.

Overall, the content seems to be well-written, being concise and clear. There aren't any grammatical or spelling errors that I encountered, but I would have liked more diverse grammar usage, especially transitional phrases. Too often I see "Due to this..." and "Due to that..." Maybe consider adding in more different transitional phrases, or maybe not. Ultimately up to you. The content is well organized, especially since "Death" is placed at the last part of the article and "Early Life" is placed at the front, with "Position of Chief" near the middle (although I do believe you could maybe consider talking about "Personal Faith and Beliefs" first before talking about "Position of Chief," so maybe the former can lead into the latter, just a thought).

The peer did add images, but they are not well-captioned. They seem to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, and they are laid out in a visually appealing way (it doesn't seem cluttered or overtaking any space), however as mentioned previously, there are no captions to the images so without knowing the context of the part of the article it's referencing to, I wouldn't know what the image meant. Make sure to add in captions to give a brief and concise summary of what the image is or means.