User:Demi12005/User:Demi12005/sandbox/CheyenneGreen Peer Review

General info
Demi - @Demi2005
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Demi12005/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
The Peer Review

Cheyenne Green: Reviewer

Peer Review Lead In


 * The article is organized very well. The information in the article flows well with the topic of the article, Kings Island.
 * I would suggest editing less positive viewpoints on Kings Island, and adding in a possible negative viewpoint on Kings Island, if the research is possible, which will improve the neutral structure of the article. In addition, I would remove words like "only", "very", and "a lot" to create a neutral tone throughout the article. Also, I would suggest making sure the statements in the article are all given a source, or the statements closely relate to the source cited within the paragraph of the article, which would improve the reliability of the article.
 * The most important improvement to the article would be removing the words in the article that may lead readers to believe the author has a certain perspective on the topic.
 * I noticed information in the article leading to a positive point of view and the statements in the article do not all contain a source, which is applicable to edits I need to make in my own article.

Article Lead Section


 * There has not been a lead section added to this article yet, so it may be good to note that a lead section is still being improved or edited to be added to the article.

Structure


 * The sections are organized well. The order the sections are in makes sense and flows well in the article.
 * Each section in this article is almost equal in length, which I appreciate. The information in the sections seems to be necessary to the article's subject of Kings Island, and no information seems off-topic to me.
 * The information in the article properly represents the positive viewpoints in the published articles, although it may be a good revision to check for negative viewpoints in the published articles.
 * The article mostly describes a positive point of view of Kings Island, where it may be better for a neutral view to be represented in the article.

Neutral Content

Reliable Sources
 * By reading the article, I may guess that the author enjoys Kings Island, but that could be edited by removing certain phrases.
 * The words that could be removed to make the article more neutral are "only" in the first sentence of the Cost Efficiency section, "very" in the fifth sentence of the Cost Efficiency section, and "a lot" in the first sentence of the Benefits of Dorm Life section.
 * There are no claims from unnamed people in the article, which I appreciate.
 * The article focuses on positive information, so it may be a good edit to find if there are any negative claims about the article's subject.


 * The statements in the article are connected to reliable sources, like journal articles and News Broadcasts.
 * Each statement is related to one source, so the article is balanced.
 * There are a few sentences throughout the article that are not directly sourced, so it may be a good edit to check if all of the sentences in the article are related to the sources cited, and add sources to the statements that aren't cited.

Reviewer Reflection


 * First, based on this revision, I plan to add information to my lead, that will provide the readers with reasoning for the importance of my topic.
 * Next, based on this revision, I plan to revise any words that lead the readers to believe I have a certain point of view on my topic.
 * Lastly, based on this revision, I plan to make sure the statements in my article, that aren't directly cited, are related to the sources within the paragraph.