User:Jzdollar/Russian conquest of the Caucasus/ToriTrouble Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jzdollar


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzdollar/Russian_conquest_of_the_Caucasus?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Russian conquest of the Caucasus
 * Russian conquest of the Caucasus

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

There is no lead, as it is adding to a specific section of an article rather than the article as a whole.

Content and Tone

Overall the content looks detailed and well written. I would, however, separate the text blocks a bit to provide a more visually easy reading experience (this is a wikipedia article, not necessarily an essay) or perhaps see how it can be visually broken up through the use of images. I am confused, however, for what section of the existing article you are adding to. I assume the section you wrote is a rewriting of the existing section on the annexation of Eastern Georgia, but I would make that more clear and see how the section fits into the overall article, especially since there are more sections under that heading than just the one you wrote. On that same note, I would further develop your article by copying in the existing one and then including your sections into it, so that your sandbox reads as an article rather than just an essay copied under a subheading.

I will note there is a few weird additions such as "(243-259 Edge of empires)" that are extra and seem to be there more for personal note purposes for referencing. I would just make sure they're not there for the final version. There are also a couple of typos such as "Catherines" but a quick pass through a spell checker should catch those. There are also a few instances in the writing that don't feel emotionless and fact-like for wikipedia, particularly in the use of adjectives to describe events throughout the section, and in terms of tone there are several instances where it does read more essay than argumentative-like.

There are also a few phrases that feel a bit weird, such as "Russia, finally able to exert more than a marginal control of Georgia, straightaway underwent a restructuring of the devastated country." Straightaway reads redundantly, but that should go away with a few quick drafts of the prose.

Sources and References

I would check to see how your sources are cited in the source code, as it seems like they're not cited in the wikipedia template. Citation in general doesn't seem much developed, so I assume that's the next step as some hyperlinks have already been created in the beginning of the first paragraph.