User:KFluh/Solar eclipse of May 29, 1919/Tylerd24 Peer Review

General info
KFluh
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:KFluh/Solar eclipse of May 29, 1919
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Solar eclipse of May 29, 1919

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 first source is heavily used in the first section, maybe different sections could be cited so that it is clear where in the text the section is coming from. I like the information given in the first section regarding the history of the theory of relativity, I think it could be more effectively organized to make it clear to the reader what the significance is sooner. Perhaps if it led with the fact this solar eclipse enabled this observation then dives into the context and the result it would be a clearer narrative. As I was reading it I was wondering what the relevance was to the article, but it just clears it up at the very end of that paragraph. I would recommend exploring other section headings other than what is currently in your sandbox, I think if you had something that made it clearer what the relevance is to the eclipse was it would also alleviate the problem I had with wondering what the relevance was until the last sentence.

In the second section, what was against the astronomers? Was it weather or other factors? If the following statement about the RMS covers that then maybe a colon or semi-colon is more appropriate than a period to give the idea continuity. I think your section header could be a little more specific if it detailed what it exactly was being attempted to be proved.

Spelling error in the first sentence with "stroms".

Great work! I think you maintain a neutral tone throughout and it is evident that you do not have a position you are trying to argue. Sources are a little difficult to check with them being primarily textbooks, but I'm sure there will be more. And just as a heads up, the link in your second source doesn't link to the source since it's in a database the public doesn't have access to. I had no idea this particular eclipse was so important to proving Einstein's theory of general relativity :)

~