User:Ryal1ll/Chamba people /CourtneyReko 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? Ryal1ll
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ryal1ll/Chamba people

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, there are a few new sentences about the group and states.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does. It explains that they are an ethnic group and where they are from.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No it does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It does contain information that's not in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The actual article is because it isn't split into sections but the sandbox draft is not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? It is all relevant to the Chamba people.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The references seem out of date but it is possible this is the most updated on the topic.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It seems like more can be added to the art section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes it is, there is no bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It does not.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Some of the content in the language section, belief section and art section do not have sources where they should.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There seems to be a decent number of sources.
 * Are the sources current? They seem to be around the 80's to early 2000's.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? For the most part, yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? In the first sentence of the lead it says "The Chamba people are a significant ethnic groups" when group shouldn't be plural.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is broken down into language, beliefs, and art which is then subdivided.

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 does.
 * Are images well-captioned? The caption is a little hard to understand and should probably be written in a clearer manner.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, the image is free to use for anyone.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There is only one image and it is in the center of the page, maybe it should be moved to the side.

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?

It is not a new article. The Chamba people article already exists.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, it is more complete with the content added. It adds many more sections and insight into the Chamba people's lives.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It clearly distinguishes topics with sections and subsections and it speaks a lot about the Chamba's beleifs.
 * How can the content added be improved? I thinks some more can be added to the art section and some restructuring of sentences.

Overall evaluation
This is a good amount of new information and adds a lot to the current article. It adds more sections which makes the article clearer and more organized. I think that this draft can be improved with some more information, and restructuring of sentences.