User:Katey.P/Indigenous Land Conflicts on the Mexico–United States Barrier/Miaonl 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?
 * Katey.P
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Katey.P/Indigenous land conflicts on the Mexico–United States barrier

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead generally reflects the content of the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The article needs a concise introduction sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead briefly mentions most of the article's sections. However, it is a bit too general and does not mentions parts like the border wall, protests, etc. It could go into more detail.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead talks about borders in general, when I think it would serve better to talk specifically about the US Mexico border more. It also mentions that at least 29 tribes are affected by the border, which is not mentioned elsewhere.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is almost too concise because it is so general.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The article is hyper focused on two tribes and their protests, the Kumeyaay and the Tohono O'odham. I feel like it could use other information as well, although I do not know if there is any other information to add.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes the article deals with an equity gap by addressing the indigenous people along the US Mexico border who are historically underrepresented.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is neutral. It does not insert any viewpoint.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, the content presents information that describes the conflict at the border without bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are no over or underrepresented viewpoints.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I think the content does not attempt to persuade the reader in one position. The information shows the concerns of land rights and border militarization without inserting any narrative. The article allows the reader to form their own viewpoint based on the information.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, some content lacks citation.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are fairly thorough. I would say that there is probably more literature available. Two of the sources, 1 and 3, are used 7 times each, so I think more sources should be brought in.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes the sources include authors of indigenous descent.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes the content is well written and concise. Only occasionally are there awkward parts, for example starting a sentence with an adverb followed by a comma: "Particularly,..."
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not notice 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?
 * The organization is very good. The sections represent all of the major points of the topic. I like how the order of sections goes from history to issues, then to protests. It feels like a natural progression of information.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

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?
 * Yes the article meets the notability requirements and has more than 2-3 reliable secondary sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The sources could be expanded, in my opinion, although I do not know how much more literature is available.
 * 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?
 * The article has the right section headings, but no features. I do not think any other features are necessary except maybe pictures.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * N/A
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The article gives a lot of background on the two tribes and the history of land encroachment near the border. I think one of the main strengths of the article is the neutrality.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think sources could be expanded and citations diversified. Two of the sources are used 7 times each.