User:AlexisRosendahl/Mud Island, Memphis/AmarraD. Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

AlexisRosendahl


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:AlexisRosendahl/Mud Island, Memphis
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Mud Island, Memphis

Evaluate the drafted changes
The article sticks to information about the topic, Mud Island. It goes into detail about multiple different major locations such as its museum, and Harbor Town where the residents of the Island live.

The only non-neutral word I can find in this article is "efficiently" when talking about access to downtown Memphis, but in the context of the sentence, it still feels neutral. The article is just stating facts, from what I can see there are no positive or negative connections made. It provides information and details on different locations, events, and the history of Mud Island. There is nothing that I can see that is meant to sway me to feel one way or another.

It seems as if each location/ topic except for history (most likely because it has the most information to utilize) was given the same amount of attention and effort. They have around the same amount of information added/ provided. There isn’t much spoken on the views of the people but more on the location and the experience itself.

The links work and from what I can tell the information used is a good representation of the information within the article. One thing to note however is that some of the statements within the article are a bit too close for comfort to their sources. Such as the description for the Mississippi River museum which is not quite word-for-word but carries the same flow as the original article. I’m not sure whether it is fine or if it’s too close to the original.

There are appropriate references for most major statements except for the intro or Lead section. These sources come from the communities themselves, official police reports, neutral secondary news sources such as Daily Memphian, Memphis Flyer, and wmcactionnews5.com. So it’s also clear that there are many sources. The only source that is the least bit concerning is harbortownmemphis.com which from what I can understand is a direct source of the community. However, the information taken is fully neutral and or is converted into a neutral statement.

I’d say there is a good mix of old (but not outdated) and new media. The police reports and topics about projects to come for the amphitheater are both from 2020 and 2021. All the information provided seems sufficient to add the original based on its assessment alone.

There are no additional images but the main article already has a sufficient amount of them. There is only one obvious grammar mistake in the draft and that is where it says “... used for a concerts and shows since…” aside from that it seems well written. It feels a bit clunky to read the Recreation section under Activities, but aside from that, the article is a smooth read.

Some of the information provided isn’t new and is already in the original article; it is just phrased in a slightly different way or has its own nuances. Taking this into consideration, some of the information in the draft seems unnecessary. If the draft was just directly moved over there would be a lot of repetition. If these edits were used to replace the information already there, there would be a net loss of some information. I’m not quite sure how you would improve on what is already provided.

I’d say the best bet at improving is finding more unorthodox information. Things that are more interesting and original. The information provided at this point is very basic and again some of the draft is already in the original article, to an extent. But what you have written is well written. The structure and phrasing are great in my opinion.

Response to Peer Review
Thanks for reviewing my article! It helps having another set of eyes to look over my work!

I went ahead and took out the word "efficiently" since it wasn't necessary and was questionable in terms of neutrality.

I was able to find a lot more information on the history of Mud Island and that is why that section is longer. Mud Island has gone fairly unused these last few years.

I went to compare the source I used for the Mississippi River Museum section and I think it sounds close because I was stating the same numbers they did, but the wording is different so I think it is okay. I think those numbers are necessary and neutral aspect of the island that help support the article, so I would like to keep them in there.

For the lead section, I was not sure whether or not we added sources since all of the information is covered in the article below, but I went ahead and added them just to be safe.

Thank you for pointing out that grammatical error, I spent a lot of time rewording that section and forget to double check it!

I did just add a few images to my rough draft, but I agree that the ones on the original article are good (maybe just a bit outdated).

I agree the Recreation section is a bit much, I'm going to go in and find a better way to write that so it's more informational and less like an advertisement.

I did include most of the information in the original article on my rough draft, because my goal was to build off of that instead of completely redo it. I got rid of certain information that was outdated and unnecessary, which is likely why it seemed like some information was lost. For example, the boogie beach part was removed because the waterpark was not there long and no longer exists, so it doesn't really have a place in the article.

I like your idea to add more "unorthodox" information. That was kind of my goal for the Notable Events section, which I would like to add a few more events to.

Your review was very helpful! Thanks again!!!