User:Connormccutcheon/Onondaga people/15blades 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? (Connormccutcheon)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Onondaga people

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead section is clear and straight to the point. I think it needs to add the other tribes as well just so the reader can know.
• The Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. yes.
• The lead is great but it needs to include a brief description of the article's major sections.If you add a few more details of what is to come your lead will be stronger.
• The Lead includes information that is not present in the article but without detail. I think the article should name those 5 tribes that were mentioned in the lead. (unless this was the related ethnic groups table)
• The Lead is concise. yes

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes, but you might want to add a link to show who the great peace maker is. Why was he great might matter to the reader so a link and not an explanation might be useful.
• Is the content added up-to-date? I feel that the article is up to date
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I did not see information that does not belong. I like how there was a see also section with the Onondaga people language linked.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? I think it was neutral. It mostly explained and didn't try to convince me to believe a certain way.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I did not see this throughout the article. The article mentioned that the Onondaga people, "sided with the majority of the League and fought against the American colonists in alliance with the British." For interest, maybe add why it would've been bad not to or what the other side had to offer.
• Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? That might have been the under representation. It seemed like it was so easy but the reasons were not given in detail. Maybe a sentence or two about this would make the flow more ready to accept as the information progresses.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I don't believe it does. It seems factual and neutral.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There were links throughout this whole read and made point of references make the story clear and guided as you read.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current? They are peer reviews and articles and links. The articles are old but the information is correct. I am not saying it is bad, it is just impossible unless you add primary sources; which we should not do.
• 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?
• 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?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, but it makes sense that there are not many images. I didn't want to select all my images this early either and find information I add later needing a picture and I like the new images better. It keeps the article not lengthy in images.
• Are images well-captioned? Yes
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? So far I believe so.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? It is neat and organized. This all will be again maybe rearranged later but so far it is neat and visually informational.

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? yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Yes
• Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
• 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? Yes
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, It might need to have a brief sentence describing the importance of the notable people

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
• What are the strengths of the content added? The links added throughout makes the reader not have to ask so many questions
• How can the content added be improved? Maybe you can add some traditions and celebrations form history