User:Rippaj5583/Bureau of Indian Affairs/Graceluloff 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? (provide username) Rippaj5583
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Rippaj5583/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, all that is there belongs and obviously there is more work to be done but the content is appropriate.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes strictly relaying information and factual evidence.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? U.S governmental response before creation of the bureau about the state of Indian Affairs and how they achieved this bureau.
 * 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? there needs to be more sources on various titles and events.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There needs to be more on various titles and events
 * Are the sources current? There needs to be more from after 2015, otherwise there aren't any that are grossly outdated
 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, very well done
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes great use of sections and bolding for separation.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, it is a good addition and supplement.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, concise but educational
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes,
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, not distraction but also adds to the article

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? Yes, there is always more work to be done, but this is a good contribution
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Very good with the timeline and very detailed on how it progressed overtime
 * How can the content added be improved? Reponses from other groups to these events and possible push backs to the Bureau could be good.