User:10Adrian/The Rhetorical Presidency/JackALambert Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

10Adrian and their groups article.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:10Adrian/The_Rhetorical_Presidency?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * The Rhetorical Presidency

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: The lead was not edited, however the lead in the article itself is short and concise giving an overall description of the article. The only recommendations I have for editing the lead are making it a tad longer and putting sources in the correct places, i.e. putting them at the end of sentences or after directly referencing the source.

Content: The content in the edits is short and concise, touching on all the important topics/concepts of the history and concepts of the rhetorical presidency with a brief description of the key concepts. All of the content is relevant to the topic and up to date so their are no issues their. As far as I know there is no more information that needs to be added but if their are anymore key ideas that need to be added I would recommend doing so to add more girth to the argument.

Tone:

The tone throughout the edits is very neutral and does not lean to any side more than another. The edits are very well written and get the point across quickly stating the facts and leaving out opinion. The article itself also appears to be very neutral so their is no need for edits to the tone of the article either.

Sources: The sources appear to be reliable and from data sources rather than media sources i.e. sources that state the facts and leave out argument and opinion. However in the bibliography of the sources there appears to be information missing highlighted in red for some of the articles. Other than that the sources appear to be neutral and reliable.

Organization:

The organization of the edits are in the same format as the original article and it looks/sounds good when looking/reading through the article. Some of the content does have grammatic errors like periods in the wrong places and lowercase letters at the start of some sentences. However the information is concise and easy to read and broken down into relevant sections.

Media:

There are no images, graphs, timelines etc. in the article itself or in the edits so I would recommend adding one with a description.

Overall:

Overall the edits to this article are very well written and defiantly improve the article as a whole as necessary information has been added. The only things that really stood out were things that have not been edited yet but I think this group is on the right track to improving the entire article. Small things like putting sources in the right spots and fixing grammatic errors are the only things I could fined.

'''R: Thank you for the outstanding feedback, gives me plenty of stuff to help finish the project. I appreciate you pointing out grammar errors and fixes with sources, as those are easy and much-needed fixes. Again, thanks a lot and I will definitely use much of your feedback.'''

'''A: As Riley said, thank you for putting so much work into the feedback. This is going to make it a lot easier to work on the article later. I'll for sure use the feedback to improve the article, and I'll make sure to add some pictures.'''