User:BessWilliamson/Herbert temple/Victoriawesloh Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)

(I had extra time in class today so I peer reviewed yours since it was still assigned!)

LEAD

Very clear and concise! I like that you have a short list of the main publications that you talk about later.

CONTENT

In the selected works, maybe you can add more descriptions of the works listed? Also, those don't have citations I don't think? Unless they're grouped in with something else.

I've also been told before that in 'professional' writings you shouldn't use parentheses (to make a secondary point, like this), but that was probably just a stylistic opinion rather than a rule of thumb!

If you were to add more content anywhere, I think adding some more info in the early life section about the work he produced during that time would be interesting, but obviously it depends on what is talked about in the sources.

There's a second 'contents' section, the automatic wiki generated one and one that you made, I think you can delete the one you manually did?

TONE

It seems to be very neutral! Anything that could be considered an 'opinion' of a group of people is clearly cited.

SOURCES

You have a lot of sources, and lots that are books, which is probably a good sign that wiki will count it as notable.

ORGANIZATION

You could maybe create some subsections within the Johnson Publishing Company section, but I don't think it's super necessary.

OVERALL

It's really good so far! Fingers crossed that it gets accepted!