User:Sunset Overdrive/sandbox

Naomi's Peer Review
(based on what is current on the 1491s Wikipedia page)

1. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything seems relevant to the topic and concise.

2. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Yes, the article very much just describes their work.

3. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No, the article is short and to-the-point. It very nicely just gives the facts of who they are.

4. Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The links work. From looking at them, it seems like there is quite a bit of information out there on the 1491s, and I wonder if the Wikipedia article would benefit from any added sections (although, I do think the article, as it is, feels complete).

There are no citations in the first 1.5 paragraphs; I would consider adding some.

5. Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

The information comes from reputable news sources and one blog. For the 1491s, I think all the citations are appropriate.

6. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

All the of the references are from 2016. If there are any newer sources, I might think of adding them.