User:Gaydoshbrucea1/Academic writing/AKort24 Peer Review

General info
Gaydoshbrucea1
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Gaydoshbrucea1/Academic writing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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.)

Content: The content appears to be up to date and relevant. I wouldn't say there is any content that doesn't belong. From an outside reader, I would maybe swap the first two sections. I understand more what Academic Writing is by looking at the second section. I don't think the first section is unclear, just feel a little lost in the wording.

Tone and balance: I think your writing and information is unbiased and genuinely just informs the reader. In the space of criticism I still think you took a nuetral stance that just worked to inform the person who is reading the article.

Sources and References: Over a short glance, your sources look credible and up to date. I doubt any of them carry any sort of bias. Use of most of the sources were found throughout your article. I could not find source one and two used throughout, are you adding more information? (assuming you are). One of your sources is highlighted in red for missing title, would check that before this is turned in.

organization: Again, I was just confused with the first section: article body. I agree your writing is clear and concise. I understand the use of the chat gpt section, just curious if there is a better place for it. You would know better than I do so completely up to you.