User:Natjadesho/User:Samczar09/sandbox/Natjadesho 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

 * Samczar09
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Samczar09/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead is very specific to the man who is known to have started the Iroquois Confederacy, which does tie into the article, but reads more like a bio than an introduction.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * It is not clear whether the subject of the article is Hiawatha or the history of the Iroquois Confederacy.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The description of the article's major sections is embedded in the introductory paragraph.
 * Does the Lead include Information that is not present in the article?
 * Since the lead is basically a bio for Hiawatha, all of the information concerning him is only found in this first section.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead needs to be more concise and separated from the bio on Hiawatha.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes! All content is on-topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * As far as I know, the content is up-to-date, but there are no sources from which to check.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Mostly, the content is neutral. This sentence: "Nothing much is left to know about Hiawatha." is not necessary informationally and it makes the reader aware of the author in an awkward way.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * 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?
 * Sources are not present in the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * For the most part, yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * A few stylistic errors, mostly.
 * 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?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * It would be nice to have more information about the painting in the article.
 * 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?
 * Needs sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * No, but it could!

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 interesting. It would be useful to link it to other articles that also discuss the history of Indigenous Nations and alliances, if there are any. Two main issues are (1) The introduction reads more like a bio than an intro to all the information in the article. According to the criteria that Wikipedia articles follow, the intro should be a brie overview of the entire article, and in-depth information about Hiawatha can be in its own section. (2) The second issue is that there are no cited sources for the information in the article. Lastly, personally, I would like more information about the image embedded in the article. It's cool and I'd like to know what "watha" means and/ or who Thomas Eakins is -- maybe even include a link to the wikipedia article that already exists about him.