User:Vrede1mp/Bamum people/Dreaotic Neutral Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Vrede1mp


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vrede1mp/Bamum_people?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Bamum people

Lead
The lead has been considerably updated with a lot of new content. The added content doesn’t summarize the body sections of the article, instead opting to include information about the geographical location and climate that isn’t included in the article. This information is mostly presented neatly and concisely, though there are a few filler words/phrases that can be removed/ are redundant.

Content
The content added is relevant and up to date. The sources used are all from this past century. The new information, as well as the article as a whole, seems to be neutral and free of bias. However, there is definitely content that can be added, like sections that explain more about their culture and their artistic practices, and some sections that can be expanded upon, like the second paragraph in the Political Structure section.

Sources and References
All new content is backed up by fairly current and reliable sources. Although the sources that are already present in the article are on an internet archive, so they might not be the most up-to-date and you might want to see if there are updated resources for that information. Also, the article proper lacks a list of references and a bibliography. There are a few external links, both of which are only archives of websites, but no proper bibliography so you might want to create one.

Organization
The content added is fairly well-written and easy to read. There are no real spelling or grammatical errors, though you might want to go back over your phrasing as, while neutral it is also sometimes awkward. The new content is nicely placed into major points which are then expanded upon. Though the last sentence on slaves, if not expanded upon their political significance should probably be moved to a different section.

Overall impressions
Though not complete, the new content definitely benefits the overall quality of the article. It is easily digestible, well cited, and relevant information about the culture of an underrepresented people. Other than simply just adding more content and expanding the reference section, the only real improvement I can think of is that there’s something about the exact wording that doesn’t quite sit with me. I can’t quite put my finger on it but it just comes off as awkward at times. Though it might just be me. Try reading it aloud to see if any of it sounds off.