User:Miaonl/Cleveland indigenous activism/Jcichoke 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? (provide username) Miaonl
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Miaonl/Cleveland indigenous activism

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead fully reflects the substance of the article
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, they did a very good job of being concise but also of including everything of note.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is a perfect size lead for the article as it is short, but includes everything.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes it is. It includes both recent info, as well as historical info.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No there is not.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes. In this specific scenario, it discusses the Indigenous people who lived in the area that has currently developed into a metropolitan city center: Cleveland. Instead of focusing on the development of the city itself, the article focuses on the history of the indigenous in the area.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes it is.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, it is very balanced.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, they use very good sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they are extensive and reliable.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes they do.
 * 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. It is very in-depth content, but also very concise and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. The sections are very clear and easy to navigate. It helps the structure of the article a lot.

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It is very exhaustive
 * 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 it does
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes it does, it does a good job of that.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. They did a very good job of improving the overall quality of the article, and informing people of new content.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is well structured, informative, and concise.
 * How can the content added be improved? Nothing of note, the article appears ready to be published! It is very well done.