User:BWeaver2007/Cortland, New York/BWeaver2007 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * writeaboutnowthen
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Cortland, New York
 * Cortland, New York


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cortland, New York

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.)

1.      Lead Section:

a.      Importance of topic clear? Yes

b.      Leads into most important info? Yes

c.      More weight to certain parts of article over others? Anything missing? Anything redundant? No

2.      Structure:

a.      Sections organized in sensible order? Yes

b.      Would they make sense in another way? No

3.      Balance:

a.      Section length equal to its importance? Yes

b.      Sections that seem unnecessary or off topic? No

c.       Reflects diverse perspectives? Significant viewpoints left out or missing? Yes, No

4.      Neutrality:

a.      Could you guess the authors perspective? No

b.      Any biased wording/phrases? ((ie: “the best idea…”, “most people…”, or negative association: “obviously…” No

c.      Any unnamed groups? (“some people….”) No

d.      Too positive or too negative views? no

e.      Does the article draw conclusions or tries to convince readers one way or another? (Be unbiased). No

5.      Sources:

a.      Reliable? (textbooks/academic journals) Yes

b.      Several sources used? Yes

c.      Any unsourced statements? No

d.      Any missing references in bibliography? No