User:Malharbican/Sheberetch Utes/Cnboyack 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? Malharbican
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Malharbican/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? Yes, does a great job of briefly explaining the people.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it provides a nice timeline that will guide the subtopics of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead mentions climate and horses, which are not explicitly stated, but I think they will be discussed in the geography section. If not, it should be added because it is a good detail.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is the perfect amount of words and description.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? From what I can tell.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is a sentence under the Elk Mountain Mission where it mentions the people becoming mounted. It didn't really fit with that section, I would move it somewhere else.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? A majority of it is.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are a couple times where it seems like you're making your own claim. Like when you say missionaries felt secure, I'm not sure if that was explicit in the research. I would just go back and read through to make sure everything is in line with the citations.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The Elk Mountain Mission kind of paints the Natives as the bad guys, which they might have been, I'm not sure. But if you can, tell it from their point of view. Why did they feel the need to steal or start problems?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not really.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I'm not sure, but if you had sources from these people that would really add to the article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There's only one, but it works.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? It does repeat some words every now and then. I would suggest reading it aloud or putting it through Google Translate voice to catch some of those.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, great timeline.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? The captions are a little repetitive, I would just take another look at them.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

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.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I would say yes, just remember to add a few more to meet the minimum!
 * 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? Yes.
 * 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? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Does a very good job guiding the reader through the timeline of the people. Informative, but not too overwhelming.
 * How can the content added be improved? Just read it aloud to edit and add detail to shorter parts.

Overall evaluation
Overall, fantastic article. Very well done. I think it will look really good once you finish it out. My only advice would be to read it a couple times to catch any bias or repeated words. Great work!!