User:RiverSong84/Land Run of 1892/Jadeochoaa Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:RiverSong84/Land Run of 1892
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer Review:

Lead


 * 1) Leading paragraph is not overly detailed; straight to the point description of the Land Run (1892). Since it is just a rough draft, you can possibly add a section or even add it into the another section of how the run led to the established counties (i.e., Blaine, Custer, Ellis County, etc) mentioned in the paragraph because that is the only information that is not present in the actual article, yet mentioned in the leading.

Content


 * 1) Background
 * 2) I would add the specific proclamation that opened the land up for a more detailed description while also adding a map or some form of visual aid to explain the reservation before and/or during the division.
 * 3) You could do a paragraph or a subheading in the background explaining how the Cheyenne and Arapaho came together  (through trade? simply because they were in the Colorado region? a treaty?) since the land run was about their reservation so explaining how they got onto the same one historically, taking in consideration of the proclamation, would be a good addition.
 * 4) Settlers and Developments
 * 5) I believe that the first three sentences talking about the demographics of the land run should be mentioned somewhere in the background? Or maybe worded differently because the paragraph went from the land run to then settlers within the region so there is a clear difference.
 * 6) You could also add another paragraph and/or sub-section here talking about the counties mentioned in the leads to that information into the article
 * 7) Only the Custer County was mentioned and not the Blaine, etc

Organization


 * 1) Grammar should be checked

Overall


 * 1) Structure and context of the article is really easy to follow and not hard to find
 * 2) Sources are diverse, reliable and work well within the realm of information for the article.
 * 3) It will never hurt to add more photos
 * 4) I think that the article is a strong start. It  just needs minor fixes in the details and a bit more information where wording can be a bit vague and it will be good!
 * 5) Tone and balance is good, also sources are thorough, diverse spectrum and work