User:LiuXianSenCMU/Baga people/Brown34s 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?  Liu XianSen
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Baga people

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. I think the first sentence gives a clear indication of the type of people going to be discussed throughout the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead touches base on the major topics that are discussed throughout the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead provides a general idea of each topic that is mentioned in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and to the point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The writer of this article did not add anything new to the original article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? N/A
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There could be more expansion on the art and rituals of the Baga people. The article mentions that the Baga were animist. The Nimba mask seems to have a significant impact for animist rituals. Could there potentially be more objects that are frequently found in animist rituals? The article talks about the swampy wetlands and how they are beneficial to farming. I would suggest including more information as to how farming impacts their society and how it functions. Maybe include the kind of food the Baga eat as well.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content appears to be neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I did not notice any biased positions
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The Demographics and Languages sections feels underrepresented. The section feels like quotes or statements were randomly thrown together. The paragraph should be written more thoroughly on the dialects, connections between tribes, and how their name derived from the Susu phrase mentioned.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I did not notice any persuasion.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? After reviewing the overall content of the article, there are a few paragraphs that do not cite where the information is coming from.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? After clicking through the sources, majority of them were notable books with thorough text on the topic at hand.
 * Are the sources current? Many of the sources are current. Many of them are dated in the 2000s.
 * 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? Even though new content was not added, I feel the original content is clear and concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not find any grammatical errors in the original content.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article divides the major points into their own separate sections. I liked how the Nimba Mask is it's own section since it is such a large part of ritual art. I think if more objects/events are found to have a significant effect to the Baga, these should be their own subsections as well.

Organization evaluation

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? No content was added to the original article
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?