User:Nicole Lenz/Fang people /Hauen1jk 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? Nicole Lenz
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nicole Lenz/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not yet!
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Overall, doesn't address specific topics/sections.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, ties into culture!
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Older sources
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Social dynamic is sparse, could add more and organize 'Art'

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * 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? Social dynamic section has no sources yet!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Somewhat, from the last 40 years
 * 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? A bit choppy right now. Needs some more structure/organization!
 * 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? Points are broken up well and reflect major points, need more substance/organization.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:If your peer added images or media (((None)))


 * 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?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I believe once the content is more finalized it'll be a great addition to this article! I would keep the art rooted in context of the culture and how it relates back to other pieces of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Descriptive, insightful and
 * How can the content added be improved? Structure, more content and thoughtful connection to culture as a whole, pictures and captions would help as well.

Overall evaluation
I think you have the beginnings of some really good edits! Keep adding and reworking and it will be a really well rounded article.