User:JackHUC/User:JackHUC/sandbox/Bharp14 Peer Review

General info
Jack
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:JackHUC/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Operation London Bridge:

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead in:

What the article does well is provide details of the plan for the queen's death, the events of when the queen died, and the world's reaction. The changes that I would suggest the author apply to the article is adding the background & controversy section. I would also recommend going through and rereading your section because there are things like the Queen's name spelled with a "z" in the sources you cite. In your article, you use Elisabeth instead of Elizabeth. Also, there are sentences that have words that shouldn't be capitalized and there are sentences where the start of the sentence isn't capitalized. These changes would be important because you are providing more information for your reader, and you will seem knowledgeable with correct grammar and spelling. The most important thing that the author could do to improve the article is to add the background and controversial section. What I noticed about the article that I reviewed that I could add to my own article is adding more details.

Article Lead Section:

Looking at the lead itself, I don't feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic because it still needs to be added. I have an idea that the topic is Queen Elizabeth's death along with the events leading up to her death and afterward. For the lead to reflect the most important information of the article I would add stuff about who Queen Elizabeth is and the importance of who she is. The thing that is missing is the lead needs to be added to the article.

Structure:

Yes, I think the way that you have your topics makes sense to me. You are explaining the history/ background, then go on about the actual death, and then the controversy. Since you don't have all the words in your sections I can't give you a definite answer if I would recommend moving any of the sections around for it to flow better. I feel like there is plenty of information to support the idea the author is talking about. All the sections in the article seem necessary and nothing appears to be off topic. Yes, the article is very informative and reflects all the perspectives represented in the published literature and no major points seem to be left out or missing. No, the author does not draw conclusions to try to convince the reader to feel a certain way about the topic. Jack gives us information about the events that occurred and we can take our own view on how we feel about the topic.

Neutral Content:

Yes, I believe that the author has a neutral viewpoint for the most part. I think the only words, phrases, and negative associations that don't feel neutral are "it became clear", and "unhappy". No the article doesn't make claims on behalf of unnamed groups of people, there is a name for who said each statement. No the article doesn't focus too much on negative or positive information. This is just a sad topic to read about because it is the death of Queen Elizabeth II.

Reliable Sources:

Yes, the statements in the article are connected to reliable sources like journal articles. All the statements are attributed to 1 source and no one source is used multiple times which causes an unbalance in the article. There are no sources that I can't find stated in the references.

Reviewer Reflection:

The three revisions that I plan to add to my own article are adding more details, examples, and years/ dates about when events occurred.