User:DullestStimpy/Ottawa River timber trade/MccEmma Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

DullestStimpy


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:DullestStimpy/Ottawa River timber trade


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Ottawa River timber trade

Lead
The Lead has not and does not necessarily need to be updated to reflect the new content added by this student, since most of their contributions were adding onto preexisting content. The introductory sentence in the Lead is very concise and clearly explains what the topic is about. The Lead briefly describe the major sections of the article and does not include gratuitous information that is not found later in the article. It is perhaps slightly more detailed than necessary, but it is not detrimental to the overall value of the article, and instead provides a thorough overview for someone who doesn't want to read the entire article but wants a quick explanation.

Content
The content that was added is very relevant and complementary to the topic, and it appears to be as up-to-date as reasonably possible for this more dated topic. I think all of the content added does belong in the article and contributes to the understanding of the topic. One historically underrepresented population that could potentially be addressed in this topic is the Indigenous peoples of the area, and if/how they were affected by this trade.

Tone and Balance
The content added to this article is neutral and does not appear biased toward any particular positions. I don't feel that there is anything particularly over- or underrepresented, and I do not feel that I am being persuaded in favor of or against anything in the new content.

Sources and References
There are 4 new sources of information cited throughout the added content. One is a reliable encyclopedia source, one is a PDF of unidentifiable reliability, one is a perhaps somewhat less reliable blog, and the last is content from the Parks Canada website, which should be reliable. The content does accurately reflect the sources that I could click through the links to, but the Parks Canada source link does not work so I could not check it. The sources that I can find dates for are current, and they do seem to reflect the available literature on this niche topic.

Organization
The content added by this student is well-written, informative, and free of grammatical or spelling errors that I noticed except for one confusing sentence - "Fort-Coulonge ,The Coulonge River joins the Ottawa River just east of Pembroke, Ontario." The new content was well-organized and added into its appropriate preexisting paragraphs in the article.

Overall impressions
The content added did indeed improve the overall quality of the article, making it slightly more informative and adding interesting snippets. However, if I am parsing the draft and preexisting article right, there wasn't a ton of new information. I feel the content added could be improved with simply more of it - it is interesting stuff, so further in-depth research on certain aspects that are perhaps less represented would be valuable. For example, the Legacy section of the article is interesting to me, but neither of the first two paragraphs are cited, so finding sources for that information could be useful. And, as aforementioned, you could perhaps research how the Indigenous peoples of the area were affected or involved in this topic, if there's any reliable information out there.