User:PippaThePup/Blue Heron Paper Company/Genieinabottle123 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

PippaThePup


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PippaThePup/Blue_Heron_Paper_Company?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Blue Heron Paper Company

Evaluate the drafted changes
Note:

I think you did a great job overall! I appreciate how you are touching on underrepresented perspectives, even with something that may seem irrelevant to the conversation, such as a paper company. I think this goes to show how underrepresented these voices are as one may never think that a paper company would have Native American history ties.

Lead

 * Yes, the student added one fitting sentence to the lead which further makes the lead strong.
 * Not applicable since the current version already has an introductory sentence.
 * Not applicable since the current version already has a brief description of the article's major sections - for the most part.
 * No, the lead does not include information that is already present in the article.
 * Yes, the lead is appropriately concise.

Content

 * Yes, all the information added is relevant! The history section is integral to understanding how this company came to be.
 * Yes, the content added is up to date as it includes modern references as current as 2022.
 * I am unsure since I do not know too much about this topic, but it is unclear how section "Restoration" is relevant to this company. It is possible that the missing paragraphs from section "Native American History" would preface the prior section and would make more sense.
 * Yes, the article directly helps bridge one of Wikipedia's equity gaps as this article has sections discussing Native American history or the environmental impact the company had.

Tone and Balance

 * Yes, the tone of the added information is neutral.
 * No, there does not seem to be any information that is heavily biased.
 * There is a lot of information about the impact on Native Americans, which is greatly underrepresented. Therefore, I would say this article perfectly captures many different perspectives!
 * No, the content added does not attempt to persuade the viewer.

Sources and References

 * Yes, the content is backed up by many secondary resources.
 * It was difficult to access [2] but the rest of the sources accurately reflect the added information.
 * Yes, the sources are thorough, with some of them being many pages long.
 * Yes, the sources are current.
 * Yes, the sources are diverse. The sources include an independent and local tribal magazine.
 * There are enough peer-reviewed articles used as sources and the independent tribal magazines serve as more accurate information when discussing the Native American history.
 * Most of the links work but [2] again is difficult to access.

Organization

 * Yes.
 * "U" capitalized in "Under" during the first sentence. Other than that, the article is free of grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Yes.

Overall Impressions

 * Yes, the article is much more complete with the student's added work! It touches on more important occurrences than just having a minimum lead in the current version.
 * The strengths lie in discussing the histories from multiple perspectives and touching on underrepresented communities.
 * Some of the sentence structures are a little bit difficult to read, but everything still makes sense. I think making the sentences more concise would help readability.