User:Stringam/Barrow Duck-In/Gabby223 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)
 * Ana Stringer (stringam)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Stringam/Barrow Duck-In

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Lead evaluation
The first paragraph you have should be your lead section (I think), in which case you would want it to be above the first heading and contents section. I also think you might want to add some more information (maybe a sentence) about what happened after the Duck-In — while you don’t want to give everything away in your lead section it would be good to give a full overview of what you will talk about I think. Other than that, your lead section is strong and gives only the pertinent information setting up the article very well.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
You go into the right amount of depth where the reader comes away with a solid grasp of the Duck-In, but not too much so that the details get confusing or seem unnecessary. All the content included is relevant, and there doesn't seem to be any major gaps in the research and information. This article does deal with a historically underrepresented population as it talks about the Iñupiat peoples of Alaska.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
You write with a very neutral voice, and the piece as a whole seems very objective since you include a range of sources coming from both Indigenous peoples and activist groups as well as government websites and third party news sources. Your writing is also objecting and does't seem to have any bias.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
This article is very well cited, and facts are well stated. I think you have a good number of reliable and diverse sources, especially for a topic with little information. There was one source I checked that didn’t work (source number 11 called “The Duck-In,” so you may want to take a look at that to make sure it is a correct citation. Also, make sure you have a heading for your references section!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
I think the structure of your article works very well too — the quick background you give is very helpful, and the way you split up the information about the actual Duck-In helps to guide the reader. One suggestion I would make about the structure though, is I might make the “Similar Protests” section a separate heading instead of keeping it under the Duck-In section. It could work where it is now, but since the section is switching gears a bit it might be helpful to make it different. Additionally, there are a few minor spelling and grammatical typos.

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?

Images and media evaluation
N/A

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?

New Article Evaluation
I think this article does meet these requirements. This topic does not have many available sources, so this article does provide a good overview of the available literature. I believe it passes the Notability standards, and does follow the patterns of similar articles. Additionally, it links to lots of other articles so that it can be discoverable.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
This is a very strong article! It is concise yet very informative. The story telling nature of it makes it very easy to read and understand. It taught me a lot on a topic I knew nothing about. Great job!