User:Crystia12/Bachelor of Arts/ComputerGuyAW Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Crystia12


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Crystia12/Bachelor of Arts


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Bachelor of Arts

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.)


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * After reading the Lead, I think more content could be added to make the sections that you added to the article more clear to the reader as there is not much content that "leads" the reader into the article. From my perception, it really isn't that clear as the article seems to jump right into the major topics rather than slowly leading the reader into those major sections.  Before continuing, I recommend adding more to the Lead, especially topic sentence to lead the reader into the major sections.
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e., Is it concise and easy to read?
 * As I was reading through the content that you have added, or are planning to add, you do have a lot of information about the Bachelor of Arts degree, which I like. One thing that I have noticed throughout the new content, however, is that there is a lot of repetition and some of the sentences could be longer.  Some of the sentences could be put together using a conjunction to both cut back on repetition and to make it more clear to read.  It would be better for the reader's eye.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Observing the new content, I have noticed that there were some minor grammatical errors throughout that should be corrected before adding the content to the article. The grammatical errors are mostly not capitalizing pronouns when they should be capitalized.  For example, Bachelor of Arts is the correct way to write it...not Bachelor of arts.  Other than that minor error, I have not noticed anything else that popped out.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e., broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * According to my observations, the content is well organized, talking the headers, however, some of the content contained under each of the topic headers is a little bit hard to understand as each of the major sections that were added contain information that needs to be more organized. With that, I mean that each major section seems to contain some information that shouldn't be under that header, but rather under a different header that is more relevant to the content.