User:Gooobster/Writing in the Early America/Water King's Falcon Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Goobster


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Writing in Early America

Lead

 * The lead has been updated with content entirely from Goobster.
 * The lead does not have a complete sentence that accurately or clearly describes the articles contents.
 * The lead does not describe the major sections of the article.
 * The information included in the lead is not included in the main body of the article.
 * The lead is concise though does not depict the contents of the article and is underdeveloped in introducing the topic and the content to come.

Content

 * The content is relevant to the topic as it is all information on the history and development of writing in early america.
 * The content is mostly up-to-date with one citation from the 90's
 * The article is missing content including the definition of early America and the time period it's referring to as well as the content in the sections already included. Overall the content in at least 2 of the 3 article body sections are greatly underdeveloped.
 * There is no discussion of equity gap. Potential possibility would be how the definition of literacy changed and how that sometimes had racist implications.

Tone and Balance

 * The content present is neutral and factual in nature.
 * There aren't any claims in the article, just presentation of the contents of the references on the topic.
 * The lead and 2 of the 3 article body sections are underdeveloped with one sentence in each making the article very unbalanced.
 * There is no persuasive language used in the article.

Sources and References

 * Content is greatly under-cited and unbacked.
 * The content from the sources is accurate where cited.
 * The references are not thorough in terms of references available on the subject.
 * The sources are current with just one published in the 90's
 * The authors of the references don't represent any marginalized groups though they could.
 * There are definitely more scholarly articles available on this topic.
 * All three references are able to be followed.

Organization

 * The content is not well written, clear, or concise.
 * There are multiple misspelled words and grammatical errors.
 * The sections are organized in a way that makes sense for the content ie. a timeline.

Images and Media

 * There are no images or media added.

New Article

 * The article has 3 notable secondary, independent sources on the book.
 * The reference list is not extensive nor does it cover what is currently written on the subject.
 * The article follows the timeline pattern that other historical articles follow in terms of subjects on time periods.
 * The article does link to other articles to make it more discoverable.

Overall Impressions

 * Goobster's additions has made the article more complete though it is still very underdeveloped.
 * The strengths of the content added is its flow and description of the information included.
 * The content added can be improved by being cited more and by developing the other sections as well as expanding the lead to reflect the content of the following sections.