User:Sophia.larsenrosner/Sarah Hunt / Tłaliłila'ogwa/Alba Sofia Hernandez 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)
 * sophia.larsenrosner
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Sophia.larsenrosner/Sarah Hunt / Tłaliłila'ogwa

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has not been updated. However, the new information added is consistent with the lead description of this topic.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. However, while concise, the lead could include a sentence mentioning that Hunt's work has been acknowledged through various awards and recognitions since this is mentioned and expanded upon later on in your article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does not directly provide a brief description of the article's major sections apart from the suggestion of discussing her Academic Career.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise. A suggestion for further clarity is to more clearly explain if the " issues facing women, girls, and Two-spirit people" that Sarah Hunt focuses her academic career on is only Indigenous women and girls or if it is issues facing all women and girls (from the general purpose of this assignment and based on the rest of Hunt's research focus it is suggest that it is Indigenous women and girls, but clarity is better than doubt).

Lead evaluation

 * The lead is quite concise and well-written from my analysis. Adding a few more details about what will be discussed in the rest of the article such as a brief mention of her early activity and contributions to society and her accomplishments (awards) could help further introduce the content of the rest of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Based on my comparison of the existing article to what has been added so far, the content added is relevant to the topic. Perhaps more can be added if more information is available.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The new content added is up-to-date and the writer did well in including the previous information since this article is biographic and therefore Sarah Hunt's past accomplishments and information are still relevant to her early biography and how it has continued to develop.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Perhaps some information that might be worth researching is why she chose these topics to research. Are there any interviews or sources that talk about her concentrations and why she chose these topics, how she became interested in studying these? This could be a significant part to her academic career if you are able to find information on it, I know targeting specific information like this is difficult but I thought it would be worth mentioning in case you ran into something like this during your reading about her.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Absolutely! The article speaks about a female Indigenous scholar who researches topics related to underrepresented populations such as Indigenous politics and issues related to minorities within this minority (such as women).

Content evaluation
Really concise and clear! Considering some of the questions I suggested when speaking about missing content could help your future research on Sarah Hunt to hep expand your article based on what information is available to you.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content seems to be presented in a neutral matter. There was no strong evident bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not from my understanding of the content of the article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not from my understanding of the content of the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Not from my understanding on the new added content.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article seems to be neutral and well-balanced and toned for the time being.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The content provided so far does not seem to be backed up by any references. I could not find any citations either in the bibliography nor a reference section at the bottom of the sandbox.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * N/A.
 * Are the sources current?
 * N/A.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * N/A.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Could not find any links.

Sources and references evaluation
One should be included (I apologize if there is a glitch in my page that is not allowing me to see the sources and references your provided).

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I could not find too much different from the already existing article. What was added was well-written.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * In the Sandbox the phrase "Sarah group up on- and off-reserve" should indicate grew* up. However, I noticed that this was already included in the original/existing article without the spelling mistake.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well-organized and follows and appropriate order relevant to the topic and the flow of the article.

Organization evaluation
Try and add a bit more information apart from what was part of the existing article (this is based on my comparison of what is in the Sandbox and the existing Sarah Hunt article).

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
 * I could not find much more new information in the Sandbox compared to the existing article. However, what was new was relevant and does add/improve the quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strength is that it provides more detail into Hunts accomplishments and research.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Try and add more new information if available. If not, re-wording and organizing some of the existing content could help you in improving your article.