User:Ewalker2/Common Sense/Kjbannonpstcc Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ewalker2


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Ewalker2/Common Sense


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Common Sense

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it gives a broader view of the impact of Common Sense while also elaborating on the fact that the author was never paid for his work. I did not find any information that was added that didn't belong or needed to be taken out.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content you added does not seem to try and change anyone's opinions in any way. I would say the added content is neutural.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The source I was able to access looked like it was a reputable source for this project.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, your source is only 7 years old. It was published in 2015.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? : The link to your second source does not work. I would go back and try and insert it again. All other links were accessable.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. The added information was easy to read with very few minor grammatical or spelling errors. Where you wrote: "Paine never recouped the profits that he felt were due to him from Bell's first edition. Ultimately, he lost money on the Bradford printing as well, and because he decided to repudiate his copyright, he never profited from Common Sense" a change in structure here would be beneficial. In addition this sentence "It was also estimated that nearly twenty percent of all colonists own a copy of Common Sense" just needs "own changed to "owned" in order to keep the context in the past tense.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. The two points that were added were separated by paragraphs to show there were two different ideas being added.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What are the strengths of the content added? I really like that you added the comparison of populations from then and now to give a good idea of how big this was back then. That really was able to put it into perspective for me.
 * How can the content added be improved? The overall content is good but your intext citations are missing making it hard to figure out where the information came from.