User:Toni.leigh.jones/Lobi people /CourtneyPhelps 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? toni.leigh.jones
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Toni.leigh.jones/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Edited section does not involve lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes, it leads right into what could be the sections of art focused on (shrines, figures, marriage poles, woodcarvings and small sculptures)
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? maybe - things that could be expanded on eventually.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The only source on there is from 1980, I'd say thats pretty up to date for African art information considering information from this century is hard to come by.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All of the content is relevant.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? "most art historians", this should be supported by more information. Who says it's simple - who says it is not and go into why.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? nope
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? nope

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There is only one source on the page so far. Is all of this written based off that one source?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? 1980 and forward.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is concise. Could include more references on these topics of related information. There is a lot written so far, I believe it could continue to be expanded upon.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A couple. Read through.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it is well organized. From what I've seen in other peoples articles they separated the different topics within their art section by types of art - so for yours you could do "Wood Carvers" and "Marriage Poles".

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


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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I believe this will enhance what is already written of the art section in the original wiki page
 * What are the strengths of the content added? New information that's not already in the original article that will help readers learn about the culture of the Lobi people.
 * How can the content added be improved? More in text citations. Grammar.