User:Malharbican/Sheberetch Utes/Gracefreeman07 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, the first sentence is clear in describing what the article will be discussing.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead is a great introduction into the article and gives a good summary of what will be discussed.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Nope, great job!
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Great job, the only suggestion I have would be to maybe add a little more detail about the specific instances you will be discussing. Overall a great lead section!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Absolutely, great job selecting specific historical moments relating directly with the tribe.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes! Made sure to include where they are now and the history of that.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content that you added was great and super applicable to the topic which is awesome!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yeah you did a great job at this.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Nope!
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Nope, stayed very neutral

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall you did a great job at making sure the tone was neutral and matched the voice of wikipedia.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yeah your sources look great!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * It looks like you have a wide variety of sources which is awesome.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, there is even a source from this year which is awesome.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All the links I tried worked for me!

Sources and references evaluation
Great job!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * For the most part the writing is very clear, it got a little confusing in the Elk Mountain Mission with all of the names that were mentioned, but overall well-written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I saw!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes!

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, great images!
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Captions are well written and clear as well
 * 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?
 * The sources seemed very diverse and really good.
 * 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?
 * Yes it has several links to other articles!

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The article is very well done. I think that the organization is the only thing that could use a little bit of work, making sur eto make it as clear as possible. The information is all there though and the article was really good!