User:Ber788/Treaty of Thorn/Jasonholler Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ber788


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ber788/Treaty_of_Thorn?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Treaty of Thorn (1709)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi! Here's my peer review for your work so far:

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - Yes, sort of. You added a short bit about a previous treaty, but the Lead remains mostly unchanged. I would suggest adding another sentence about the implications of the treaty, which you go on to describe later in the article.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, you did a good job adding information about the implications and results of the treaty, something the original article completely glossed over. It adds context and gives a better idea of the Treaty of Thorn in the reader's mind. I would suggest adding a little more information about why Augustus "effectively ceded Estland to Russia," as this part is a little vague. Additionally, the last sentence of the implications section is also a little vague, you could add more information that clarifies what signs there were that indicated Poland would become a permanent Russian protectorate. Finally, without additional information for the previous sentence mentioned, it reads more like a statement designed to persuade, rather than a statement found in a Wikipedia article.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes, save for the last sentence, I think you did a great job providing information about the consequences/aftermath of the treaty from a neutral and well-backed point of view.

Sources and References

 * Are the sources current? - Yes, you did a good job updating the previous sources that were from the 80s and 90s to sources from the turn of the century. I would just suggest finding one or two more sources that back up your claim at the end of the "implications" section.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written? - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes, the content you added flows well and didn't have any grammatical or syntax mistakes that I can tell.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - Yes, you added another dimension to the article that the previous one was missing, the consequences of said treaty. Save for a final sentence that reads like it is trying to persuade the reader, I think you did a great job adding to the article. My only suggestions are to add more information in the areas I already pointed out, and to add another sentence or two to the lead touching on the implications of the treaty.

- Jason