User:Nicole.maria789/Apesanahkwat/Konahoku8 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Nicole.maria789)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nicole.maria789/Apesanahkwat?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Apesanahkwat

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - The lead has been updated to reflect the most current content and was even visualized by being put into a table. This section gives a good overview of what the rest of the article is going to talk about and is very concise.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? -Yes so far I see that you've added different subsections such as Vietnam War, Menominee Chairman and an Activism section. These are all relevant to Apesanahkwat's life and provide more background information/context.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes the videos and articles you reference are fairly recent within the last 5 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - would suggest in the Vietnam War section describing how he is a supporter for PTSD awareness by providing specific examples or page links to organizations he was involved in. Additionally, if there is any information on how he began his acting career or what made him start, I think that would be good to include.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Yes, the page discusses Apesanahkwat's involvement in the Vietnam war and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. There's a part in the Activism section where it says he, "speaks against racial slurs." I think this wording is a little vague and should be more specific rather than putting the article in parentheses.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes! I think the content added is very neutral and there remains a neutral tone. A lot of the additional information added were hard facts that don't persuade the reader a certain way or impose any beliefs.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - Similarly to the question regarding equity gaps, when you mention PTSD and specific forms of activism, I think it's important to go more in depth with his specific involvement. Saying someone is an "activist" can be a temperamental topic without specific examples. For example, when you mention that Apesanahkwat says, "no one should have to experience that," I would try to include a direct quote or specific examples.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Some but not all. Everything in the content of the website works and sends the user to websites that are still active. I would also try to find another source like an Encyclopedia in addition to the Youtube video. In the references section, the last source for Wisconsin's paper leads to the Youtube video.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Yes. I would suggest finding other sources to support your arguments in addition to the YouTube video and article.
 * Are the sources current? - Yes, they're all within the last 5 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it easy to read; I think just going back and reading out loud will help catch any conflicts/errors too before publishing your final draft.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Here are some segments that I think could use fixing, just my suggestions:

- "He also speaks out against racial slurs" I think this can be worded better in terms of specificity. I think you should go more in depth rather than just linking the article here. If there was a specific movement or organization he was involved in, I would mention this.

- "he reconnected with his indigenous roots as a form of healing" I think you can expand a little more on this idea. It seems like an interesting topic especially if he was a part of a specific tribe and practiced certain traditions.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes it's broken down into sections/general headings and then with specific details. I think you did a good job breaking the topics down into relevant subsections.

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - I think that the content added improves the article and is a good start for providing more background information. It is starting to look more like a biography which is ideal, discussing other aspects of his life other than his film career.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Adding the section about his activism is really important. Especially as a person of color going into the film industry, it's important that he is represented in a positive light if he is doing work to further progress.

Additional Questions


 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources? I see that you've added only two references so far. I saw the note that you still have to update the references section as well. I would try to find more news articles or videos from reliable channels.
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material? Yes
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article? Yes. I think the main historical context is that he's from a Native American tribe and serves as an activist today.

Great job though and excited to see the final draft!