User:JustAJar4/Native American tribes in Texas/Marieatthemill Peer Review

General info
User:JustAJar4
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:JustAJar4/Native Tribes in Texas
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Native American tribes in Texas:

Evaluate the drafted changes
I want to caveat my comments by noting that I can see that a lot of the content is unfinished, so I know that it's actively subject to change and editing - I'm just going off what I can see!

Lead

Just a quick note: "tribes" does not need to be capitalized in the title or the first sentence of the lead.

Your lead expands on the lead of the original article, which is very underdeveloped. However, I think that the lead you've written still has some issues that need refinement. The first line is worded in a strange way - I prefer the original article's "currently based in Texas [or] historically lived in Texas" to "have been displaced to Texas and also have ancestral ties to the land", since I think that your wording deprioritizes the indigenous groups who currently live in Texas.

The information about how long indigenous people have been in Texas is not present later in the article, and there does not need to be a "perhaps" before discussing Paleoindians - if Paleoindians lived in the region 37,000 years ago, then the region has been inhabited for that long.

"50 independent nations before 1900" is also not accurate to the source you used. In the late 19th century, Texas was a state of the US, and indigenous groups did not constitute independent nations - the term "nation" in relation to Native American tribes (see Navajo Nation) is defined differently from how it usually is in other contexts.

My bad if it's just because you haven't finished adding the info to the body of your article yet, but at the moment, your summary of the history of indigenous people in Texas doesn't go past the Spanish period. I think that it's important to include the American period in this history, since that will presumably be a major part of the history section of the article.

Content

The "demographics" section doesn't appear to actually contain anything about the indigenous groups that live in Texas, but rather the regions of the state. As such, when I get to the section about "distinction complications," I have no idea who any of the groups that it's discussing are.

Some of the content of the history section is vague. For example, when you say that "a plethora of groups" lived in pre-European Texas, I want to know who those groups were.

Tone and Balance

I don't view using the term "occupation" as the header for the post-European contact period of native history in Texas as neutral. "History" would be both more informative and more impartial. Other than that, I think the rest of the content comes across as striking the right balance.

Sources and References

The first paragraph of the pre-16th century history section is unsourced, as are the language families native to Texas - these are both things that I think need to have references backing them up.

The sources that you use to back up the rest of the content seem solid.

Organization

I don't understand why you split this article off from Native American tribes in Texas. Your article and this article cover the same topic with effectively the same title, and should be merged. All of the information in that article is extremely important to understanding the content you're adding to this article, and vice versa. Splitting them means that your article is lacking critical information.

I would also change the way you formatted the lists of information in the demographics section. A new paragraph split for every item on the list doesn't seem consistent with typical Wikipedia formatting from what I've seen - I think that they should just be written out and separated with commas.

Overall impressions

I want to make it clear that even though my comments come across as pretty critical, I'm very much aware that this is an unfinished draft - I'm only able to go off what I see at the moment, so I fully expect that a lot of these issues will be solved by the time you're done. I think that the original article is extremely underdeveloped, and as such is a good candidate to be fleshed out more. I think that as long as you reverse the split of your article from the Native American tribes in Texas article and merge the content, just about any addition will be a marked improvement.

I'm doing something pretty similar for my article, but for Arizona instead of Texas. I've been using the articles for Indigenous peoples of California and Native American tribes in Virginia as references since I think they're well-developed and laid out well. I think that looking over those two articles could be helpful for you too!