User:Toni.leigh.jones/Lobi people /Hauen1jk 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? Yes!
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, sculpture and function are touched on well!
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it is a good length!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, these 'types' of art tie into culture
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Sources appear to be older, but credible.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Np
 * 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? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are 'sources I plan to use' at top of page, sources in 'Draft' are less abundant and less clear.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I believe so!
 * Are the sources current? Somewhat
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Only one link under 'Reference' and it worked!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There are areas where there are grammatical errors or word choice that don't quite fit, could use some work.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are for sure a few spelling and grammatical errors throughout the whole draft, and some sentence structures don't make sense. Be sure to take time to re-read through everything!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Not broken down into sections, but easily could be! Separate sculpture and marriage poles and you mention bronze in two sentences, but I would find more info on it and possibly make it it's own section!

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (((None)))


 * 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 think it will help elaborate on culture and give a good insight and perspective on these people's values, customs and ways of life. It could be a bit more organized with the sources clearly cited, but it's a good start!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Lots of detail, tying in culture and art together and it's function outside aesthetic.
 * How can the content added be improved? Grammatical/spelling errors fixed, More clearly cited sources, organization of topics.

Overall evaluation
I think there's some good content here to start, keep doing what you're doing!