User:Rheasteruci/Embassy of Tribal Nations/EVILMEEVIN! Peer Review

General info
Rheasteruci
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rheasteruci/Embassy_of_Tribal_Nations?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to draft you're reviewing


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?


 * it gives an introduction that is new but doesn't truly reflect that rest of the article it more just introduces the organization itself.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?


 * yes, the very first sentence introduces the name of the topic and insinuates what the rest of the article will pertain to.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?


 * not necessarily, it includes more general knowledge on what the embassy IS, and the purpose it serves for Native communities. the sections are more stand-alone.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?


 * yes

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?


 * the lead is straightforward and effective in giving base information to the reader.

Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?


 * yes!

Is the content added up to date?


 * yes, the content gives a timeline that continues up to the most recent actions done by the NCAI. however, it is not much.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?


 * certain parts of the article, such as "today" could afford to have more information added as it seems very brief.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?


 * yes, this article focuses on Native groups and representation, much of which is lacking in our modern media.

Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?


 * yes, the content is not biased or opinionated in any way.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?


 * no

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?


 * no, the content is not biased and doesn't feature any unfair representation one way or another.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?


 * no, the content has no sides to take.

Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?


 * yes, all of the sources come from Native news sources.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)


 * yes, the content does give accurate information that comes from the sources.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?


 * i found a couple extra sources that have small bits of information that may be useful/added on, but the vast amount of information is already given.

Are the sources current?


 * the sources range from 2006-2009, which is recent but may not be current in the truest definition. however, the NCAI is often updated with new events/news so that is current.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?


 * yes, most of the sources come directly from Native sources, but they are diverse enough to not all come from the same place.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)


 * some sources I found include these: there are little tidbits of history that may contribute to your article here. but i believe you've found much of the information already.
 * 

Check a few links. Do they work?


 * yes, all links listed work!

Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?


 * yes, the content is not "fluffy" or confusing. it's straight to the point and informative.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no, the content is accurately written in terms of grammar and spelling.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?


 * yes, the content reflects the points in a chronological order that flows effortlessly.

'''Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

N/A

Are images well-captioned?

N/A

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

N/A

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?  * perhaps the user could add images to enhance their article further!!!'''

For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?


 * yes

How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?


 * there are not a lot of sources listed for this article, but i do think this is because of a lack of in-depth information on the subject. however, I did find some other sources that i thought could be useful, so the source does not completely 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?


 * similar articles contain pictures, which this does not have. however, there are links that bring us to different articles, which i see often on wikipedia pages. there are not any infoboxes, but I don't really think it's necessary.

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


 * yes!

Overall impressions Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?


 * considering that there was no existing article on this subject, the article created most certainly completed more information on the topic.

What are the strengths of the content added?


 * the article is fascinating and well put together.
 * I liked the links embedded into the article that brought readers to different wiki pages that help us form a better understanding.

How can the content added be improved?


 * adding images, such as images of the embassy itself or its main members would enhance your article a lot!
 * the article is a tad short