User:Mnoble13/Southern Paiute people/Salt.daisy Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mikayla Noble - Mnoble13


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mnoble13/Southern_Paiute_people?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Southern Paiute people

Overall Impressions
I really enjoyed reading your article! I think it's full of interesting tid-bits that the existing article does not include. I tried to follow the guided questions on this assignment as best as I could but a lot of the question I felt didn't apply to your article. Anyways, you did great! The biggest thing I would say is to consider added to two other wiki articles if they exist on the Kaibab Paiute or Chemehuevi. I only suggest this because wiki is (way too) strict about not talking about other topics and I worry that you might run into an issue because of it. The professor said adding to other wiki articles counts for the assignment as a whole, so maybe consider going that route. Those paragraphs have so much information that it'd be said to just delete them :( make sure you get your credit, I can see that you have worked hard!!

Lead
The lead does reflect the new content added by Mikayla. The introductory sentence clearly and concisely describes that Mikayla's addition to the article is about food gathering in the Southern Paiute society. The articles major sections are not mentioned however, I am unsure if that is necessary; the organization of the lead is well-developed for brief introduction to her subject matter. Food is a sub-section (i.e. traditional diet) in the existing article, but Mikayla expands on the subject. However, the lead is overly detailed. I would recommend moving all of the information on the "Headman," starting from the sentence "His job was to.." up to "...title would move onto that person," onto a dedicated section. The information clutters the lead and would work better in a designated space.

EDIT: I see that the Headman information is also in the Organization of the SPP section. It would be even more recommended to delete those sentences I was talking about in the lead, since it'll be repeated information.

NOTE: I will frequently use the acronym SPP as shorthand for the Southern Paiute People in the rest of this review.

Content
This topic does address a historically underrepresented population. The content added by Mikayla is relevant; she discusses agriculture practices of the Southern Paiute. The sections on the Chemehuevi people and Kaibab Paiute people does not seem to belong. I think you can link the existing articles for groups of people. Or you could briefly talk about them if they are relevant to the Southern Paiute People, like writing about their interactions or history together, but if the SPP is not directly woven into these sections, you will have to delete them, sadly. That being said, you could also transfer these sections to the wiki articles on the Kaibab Paiute or Chemehuevi, if they do exist.

Tone and Balance/ Sources and References
The content is neutral and does not have any claims that are heavily biased. I believe there is a good balance of viewpoints however, this article is plainly a specific people's history so there isn't much, if any, controversy to discuss. The references check out and are relevant to content.

Organization
I haven't noticed any obvious grammatical or spelling errors, but I might just be glazing over them. Sections reflect the major points; I actually recommend breaking some sections down further. For example, the Fishing section could have a sub-section titled "Fishing Practices." or something, where you can write all about the process of how they fishing, like tools and whatnot. You actually already have this information!

Images and Media
I feel that I know the importance of the topic as food was a core social aspect of the SPP, as Mikayla writes. And, looking at the lead again after reviewing the rest of the article, Mikayla should consider mentioning irrigation in the lead but she otherwise does a good job mentioning her key points.

The diet section may be a bit short. I know that there is a section in the existing SPP article, so maybe she plans to merge them together.

The statements are mostly connected to scholarly articles. There are a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources but, again, this article is not about a controversy, but about a history so I don't believe that it trying to "lean too heavily into a single point of view."