User:Cjones1232026/Snake War/Jadeochoaa Peer Review

General info
Cjones1232026
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer Review:

Lead


 * 1) Strong lead paragraph; concise, straight the point, brief overall synopsis of the war (i.e., location, those involved, year and casualties).
 * 2) If I had to be extremely picky, I would just say to add the cause/why of the war so that the paragraph covers all the article's major sections. "due to increased tension"
 * 3) Also, can add a photo next to the section

Content


 * 1) Background
 * 2) After the first paragraph, you could add a geo map or a photo of the Snake River Valley for a visual aid
 * 3) I feel as though the title "background" is not an accurate representation of the information because the three paragraphs are actually talking about the series of guerrilla attacks which is the actual war
 * 4) So maybe (don't have to do it, just a thought) switch the about the war and background information with one another bc the paragraph in the about the war section fits more with the word "background" than it does with "about the war"
 * 5) I would also say to ease the gold mining paragraph into the section more easily, you could say "and competing for game along with natural resources like water and gold" at the beginning of the first sentence instead of "game and water" because when I was reading it at first, there was a shift, not a flow into the paragraph.
 * 6) About the War
 * 7) Strong paragraph, again if I had to be picky, I would delete the sentence about George Crook and his involvement in the union simply because his name already links to the wiki page that explains all of that while also acting as a buffer sentence in the middle of the paragraph.
 * 8) Conclusion
 * 9) You could add in the name of the actual peace treaty or peace conference between George and Chief Weahwewa instead of "peace talks" sounding vague.

Organization


 * 1) Easy to read, concise and clear. I do think there are many grammatical and/or spelling errors and the headings were organized great!

Overall


 * 1) Tone and Balance remained neutral and unbiased
 * 2) Sources are reliable and accurately cited while also having great re-direct links to massacres, conflicts, people, etc that wikipedia already has an established page for!
 * 3) Add in those extremely minor details and some photos to showcase the information visually and the article will be good to go!