User:Heartattack4400/Anti-Federalist Papers/AliResen Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Piratekingjay, Heartattack4400, CGJohnston21


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Heartattack4400/Anti-Federalist_Papers?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Anti-Federalist Papers

Lead
Since the suggestions made to the draft, changes have been made by my peers collaborating on the article. For example, even though the first sentence gets to the point, it could have been written differently and not just the definition. The Lead does not provide brief description of the article's major sections, but it does guide the audience into that direction. The information in the lead is relevant to the topic, but it could be more specific when using words like "They" when describing the Anti-Federalists because it could be potentially confusing for the reader. Citations were also needed in this section and the peer can also add links to other wiki pages for the reader to research if more clarity on people or event is needed.

Content
While the content in the article is helpful and connected to the topic, it was not well explained and some of the previous edits reflected misinformation that could be misleading for the reader if there is no background on the subject. This is why the citations are important to add. Content-wise I think that they are going in the right direction, but maybe focus should also be on individuals who contributed to the causes being explained or added to the article and their significance. It is informative and could definitely still be improved, but it does not any address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
The tone was fine until the end of the body paragraph. Since the end of the paragraph uses a biased claim, some changes are needed to make the tone more neutral by using phrases like "it is believed" before using the claim. Additionally, They could also use opposing views to balance the tone of the article out. More citations could be useful for the reader to gain more perspective on the overall topic and not just on the one biased claim.

Sources and References
Overall I think my peers did a decent job at finding sources that are reliable and fairly recent on the topic. The oldest source is from the 1980s, but I think that they could potentially find a newer source with similar findings. Regardless, I do like that they have a variety of source types from books to journals. They are no marginalized individuals are used for sources but they can still use more diverse claims or ideas about the topic to avoid biased writing. For example, the following source can be useful in describing the conflicting views about the papers at the time by prominent figures:

Ketcham, Ralph. The Anti-Federalist Papers ; and, the Constitutional Convention Debates. New York: New American Library, 1986.


 * As for the links, Only one ( Cooper, Charles) does not open correctly.

Organization
Overall, I think the article is going well but can still be changed to sound more like a wikipedia article and less like an essay. No grammatical errors are visible, but tone is key in fixing the success of the article. The format of the whole article is good; it follow a chronological order of explaining history. The sources should also be used more to support the reliability of the article.

Images and Media
No Images or media was added. Only links and citations were connected/ added.