User:Mssuther/Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove Alaska/EartmanW Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Mssuther

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mssuther/Agdaagux_Tribe_of_King_Cove_Alaska?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Overall this article draft has a good amount of info and sources as well as a good format, but there are still some areas that could be modified or improved. Some areas need the grammar fixed, other areas may need slight wording changes, and others may be missing a citation.

The intro should be more than just one sentence and summarize some of information that you have in later sections.

The "Location" section could also use some rewording. For example clarify who said that the city was founded as the canneries opened, or maybe shorten that sentence by removing the phrase "it is said". The paragraph also abruptly ends with that link to the Alaska borough, how dies it fit into that section? Could it be mentioned within one of the earlier sentences to better describe where the city is?

In the "Language" section there is a lot of good information here. Some of the grammar, (for example the final sentence in this section), and some of the wording elsewhere could be modified. One wording choice that might be improved is when you say the language was influenced by "Russians", it might be better to say it was influenced by Russian traders/settlers or by the Russian language.

Again the "Culture" section has some good information, but could be reworded. For example, not every reader may know what "precontact" means, it might be good to specify whether that means before initial contact with Russians or Europeans. The final sentence does not flow very well either, the beginning of the sentence does not seem to connect with the end. Another potential issue is that some of the sentences look like they might not have citations backing them up. Make sure to double check that.

The final "History" section seems to not fit very well in the article. To me it seems a little too short to be its own separate section. Again, the sentence in this section does not have a citation.

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?
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 for 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?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.