User:Izzyadams/Fort Beauséjour/Asant064 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Izzyadams


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Izzyadams/Fort Beauséjour


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Fort Beauséjour

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.)

The content is relevant and brings the article up to date, expanding what was introduced in the lead but not elaborated in the original. The writing is neutral and blends with the original article, with the picture working well to break up the text and adding a visual reference. Though there is already one of the museum in the original article, a picture of the inside, the park, or the star-shaped fort could be a good addition. The references were accessible and reliable, though they are not yet integrated into the text.

While the content isn't attempting to persuade the reader any which way, it does read in parts like a travel brochure. There are a few sentences that could be simplified, though they could have been purposefully written to avoid plagiarism, and there's a spelling mistake in the Fort-Cumberland section: it should read 'there are walking trails' rather than 'there is walking trails'. Otherwise, the content is well written, neutral, and is a good addition to the original article - improving the overall quality.