User:McGlacklin/Pipil people/Arch.editr12 Peer Review

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.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Marcus Wiki Goat

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:McGlacklin/Pipil people
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Pipil people

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

The lead of this article is a little choppy, especially how the last sentence about cosmology is awkwardly tacked on at the end. I would recommend reviewing this and making it a bit more fluid. Adding some sort of timeline for when the Pipil people inhabited El Salvador as well as any relation they may have to modern indigenous or other groups could be a good place to start.

The body is split up into interesting sections, but it's a bit strange that the language, etymology etc section comes before the history section. I might suggest thinking about the order of the sections and how they flow as a reader. I would also clarify the difference between the terms Pipil and Nahua. They seem to be used interchangeably but have different meanings/connotations. I might clarify that either in the lead or history section. In the same vein as terminology, double checking if the plural of Nahua is Nahua or Nahuas.

I would include a citation or source that explains the use and creation of the term "mestizo". My understanding is that it's a newer academic term with older roots in the Spanish and indigenous languages.

I like all the ideas you have for adding an archaeology section. With the information about written language, you could think about folding that into the preexisting language section, or maybe dissolving that section into a new one with the archaeological evidence to back it up. On this note, keep in mind that there is a separate article about Pipil language and grammar, so the existing section, which is unusually large compared to the rest of the article, could probably be paired down anyways and replaced/supplemented with more prominent links to those articles.

In the Modern Nahua Culture Section, theres a comment about a post civil war resurgence of Nahua people (I think it uses the term identity?). Is this related to the Spanish conquest? Is it I'm not seeing anymore information about what this event and pattern is/was, so this could be a good place to expand more.

I like the infographic you mention adding, I think it will provide good context for the rest of the article. Were you planning to create this or have you found one that aligns with copyright?