User:McGlacklin/Pipil people/Smm323 Peer Review

General info
McGlaklin
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:McGlacklin/Pipil people
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Pipil people

Evaluate the drafted changes
The original article is not very well written, the section on language is kind of a mess, so I think the infographic would definitely be super useful. I also think that the history section is really short and planning to expand it is definitely worthwhile. I also think the lead could be just a bit longer, it's quite sparse, but I'm not really sure what to add specifically. The addition of an archaeology section would give the article more context, so I like where that's heading. It would also help balance out the weirdly large focus on language compared to everything else.

The use of writing really is fascinating that it wasn't mentioned in the original article, especially the uses to distinguish them from other Mesoamerican peoples. Do you know if there's any pre-contact written sources that have survived? That might be another place to glean information from that isn't purely archaeology, especially with regards to things like religious practices, since the article mentions Nahua cosmology but doesn't expand on it at all.

I like the idea of talking about the pottery styles and how the Europeans effected the local styles. Also, in the history section it makes a brief mention at the end about several settlements evolving into modern day cities. Is there any more information about that or could you find a source for it? Because to me I don't think the article gives a clear explanation about how these people lived, except for saying they had a "central Mexican culture" which to the average person doesn't really mean anything.

In terms of sources, most of them are quite old, so I was wondering if you guys had found any more modern sources for the information and if that is something you could also focus on. I mean one of the sources in the bibliography is from 1858.

The article needs a lot of work, but I think you're proposed changes hits most of the marks.