User:Gdavis98/Siege of Fort Detroit/Catalek Peer Review

Peer review
''I filled out this template to peer review Gdavis98's article. Anything that is italicized was written by me.''

General info

 * I am reviewing Gdavis98's work.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Gdavis98/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * The lead article has been updated to reflect Gdavis's sandbox.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Pretty much, it could include more about the background section and add something about the Battle of Bloody Run in the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the American revolution is not mentioned anywhere else.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is definitely concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Mostly. I am not sure how essential the Battle of Bloody Run is, maybe clarifying its significance would be good.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I do not think there is missing content, maybe explaining the end of the battle more clearly and what happened after would be helpful. Still I am not sure how important the Battle of Bloody Run is.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I think the claim that this was a major catalyst toward the American Revolution may be biased, only because there are not many facts backing the claim up.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The viewpoint of the soldiers may be underrepresented, however, this information may be impossible to find.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * For the most part, no. The American Revolution claim may be a little out there though.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * I like the references that were chosen, though I wish there were at least 4 more.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * After taking a quick look through JSTOR it seems that this topic is hard to find references for.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The newest one is from 2005, which isn't too old in my opinion.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * There are ZERO linked sources within the text so there are none I can click on. I only capitalized the zero so you see this, no hate.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes, I would like to revise this if possible though I am not sure how. There are not many errors but there are a few and at points word choice is not the best.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes I would say so.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * They did not.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes 100%, it has added tons of new information that I think is relevant to the topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I enjoyed learning about the history of Fort Detroit, the battles seemed intense.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Honestly, just a final review of grammar and word choice would be good.