User:Demi12005/User:Demi12005/sandbox/Oliver Lizzhelm Peer Review

General info

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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer Review Lead In:

This article did a great job providing specific numbers and plenty of citations on a niche topic.

Some of the language outside of quotations does not seem to be entirely neutral, such as "very reasonable", or "employees get significantly discounted food...". Some of the grammar may need to be rethought, such as " Kings Island updated there (their) policies" or "the security caught someone with a gun which is prohibited,..."

The most important thing the author could do to improve this article is rethinking some of the language; if the language isn't neutral, other editors may believe that the article is attempting to persuade the readers in some way. Alternatively, quotations may be an option.

This article made me realize that there is some language in my article that may not be entirely neutral; I will need to have someone else take a look and give their opinion.

Article Lead Section:

I would suggest adding a short introduction to the lead section. It may be prudent to rename the current lead section or take parts of the existing sections and using them to make a new lead section. The current lead section touches on the other sections, although it is somewhat brief. The lead section does a good job giving equal wait to all parts of the article. The sentence "The dorms come with 24/7 security and are very high-tech." is very similar to a sentence in the last section; it may be wise to remove the similar sentence in the lead section.

Structure:

I don't think rearranging the order of the sentences would improve the article. It may be possible to split the lead section into a dedicated "cost efficiency" section and the lead section; the current lead section is titled "cost efficiency", but touches on things such as security. There is not much mention of anything negative, but the 8th citation mentions some sexual assaults that have occurred. Correcting some of the language that is not neutral would make it clear that this article does not attempt to convince the reader in any way.

Neutral Content:

It appears that the author may have a good opinion of King's Island. words such as "very reasonable", "significant", and, "They have proven" could be rephrased or removed to maintain a neutral tone. The article does not make claims about unnamed people or groups of people. The article appears to focus on the positive.

Reliable Sources:

This article does a good job with using a large number and variety of sources. However, there are some phrases that are not represented in the sources. The phrase "400+ employees" is used, but the source cited at the end of the sentence says "up to 400". The source cited after the sentences "The dorms come with 24/7 security and are very high-tech. For example, they have security cameras everywhere and easy ways to contact people if a person is in trouble." does not mention security cameras or use the phrase "very high-tech". The 10th citation does not appear lead to the right place and has no information to lead the reader to the right place.

Reviewer Reflection:

Based on this review, I plan to get a second opinion on some of the language in my article, put my article into a word document for a grammar check, and revise the last sentence of my article to better reflect the source.