User:Nazanintaheri23/George Bingenheimer/Nicole.maria789 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Nazanintaheri23


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Nazanintaheri23/George Bingenheimer/Bibliography
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * There was no clear, concise lead. There was really good information and background history about the man my peer is researching. All that needs to be edited is the format of the page.
 * Is everything relevant to the article topic?
 * Yes, everything is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, I did not see any biases.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There was more emphasis on Bingenheimer's life growing up than his connection to Native American history, however, it could be a lack of sources available on Bingenheimer.
 * Check the citations
 * The links work, each source looks relevant to article topic and come from reliable sources. My peer used 2-3 sources as well.
 * Any information out of date?
 * No, the dates are appropriate to the topic.
 * Organization
 * I would divide the sections with titles to organize the Wikipedia page more neatly. The first paragraph has a lot of information.
 * Content
 * There was more of an emphasis in the man’s background history such as where he studied and how many sibling he had. I would recommend my peer to look for more information about the man’s connection to Native American people and history.
 * Strengths
 * The first paragraph had a lot of specific information about Bingenheimer's life.
 * My peer did a good job at adding dates for events in Bingenheimer's life.