User:Redalligator3/Oneota/Moro0239 Peer Review

General info
Commonsj
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Redalligator3/Oneota
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Oneota

Evaluate the drafted changes
The editing and updating of the lead is underway. In the sandbox, the introductory sentence dives right into where the Oneota live and in what time period, which is a great way to start the article. Since the lead is still being written, I don't want to be too critical about what is not within the writing yet. The unedited version on the current page is a bit lengthy and could possibly be cut down in the editing process. If someone were to open this page and just look over the lead, it should be concise but informative!

The content is organized very well. The unedited version of the article has almost no content... So the sandbox is looking much more developed! The sections include chronology, history, notable sites, lifestyles, relationships with other groups, and history of archaeological study, which are all very informative content to include. All these sections will definitely make a well-rounded article. I like how their is a "relationships with other groups" section, as that can pull underrepresented populations into the writing.

The content within the article seems to be neutral. The content is presented as information rather than opinions. There does not seem to be any biases or support for particular positions. The article covers a wide range of content, so I expect viewpoints will be covered pretty evenly.

All the information presented in the sandbox is backed by citations, which is great, considering it looks like the unedited current article wasn't supported as well... The sources used for the edits of the article are scholarly and peer-reviewed. The links to the sources do work, and most sources look pretty current! There is a nice amount of sources used, so there is definitely a wide range of information within the article.

Organization of the article is very nice. It was super easy to follow and I know exactly what will be addressed in each section. And, each section includes subsections to develop the sections further. With all the information covered in the sandbox, the way it is organized does not make it look overwhelming in any way.

There are no images in the sandbox, but I'm sure the editors will get there, eventually!

Regarding the questions presented in class... I was very impressed by the many sections in the edited version. I know this is only a review and the article will advance further, but images would definitely be something to consider! It would be nice to have some visuals, maybe of the notable sites! Also, love the citations throughout the sandbox draft. The article I have been working on lacked many citations, so I appreciate seeing so many throughout your draft!