User:Cirith Ninniach/Escanaba river/StephaniePaventy Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Cirith Ninniach)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://onedrive.live.com/edit.aspx?resid=2E6A6AC65331D8DE!479&ithint=file%2cdocx&authkey=!AFeEOfATqvo6Zaw


 * 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.)

Lead

Q1. Yes

Q2. Yes, it has a clear description of how the name of this large river was named.

Q3. Yes

Q4. No, everything is included

Q5. Not super concise or super overly detailed. It's in between.

Content

Q1. Yes

Q2. yes ( but the latest sources that could be found were over a decade ago.) However, those sources are the most up-to-date sources.

Q3. No

Q4. No.

Tone & Balance

Q1. Yes! No biases were found.

Q2. No

Q3. No

Q4. No

Sources & References

Q1. Yes

Q2. Yes, it's referring to all the sources that the writer could found.

Q3. No?

Q4. Some of the sources were all really old but those are the latest sources you could find. So yea the sources are current.

Q5. No

Q6. No

Q7. Yes

Organization:

Q1. Yes

Q2. no, everything looks good.

Q3. Yes

Overall impression:

Q1. Everything looks organized.

Q2. The strengths are: the article looks professional and it is well written.

Q3. Maybe try to add an image? But everything is well written!