User:Kangaroo503/Cuzcatlan/KingOfStones42 Peer Review

General info
Kangaroo53
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Kangaroo503/Cuzcatlan
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Cuzcatlan

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.)

This draft seems to be fairly well written so far. The writer did an excellent job separating the information into categories. The "origin" category makes good use of a quote and makes sure to cite it properly as well, though I personally would prefer keeping a specific citation for where in the source that quote comes from, as opposed to citing only at the end of the information that came from that source. Also, the in-text citations do not seem to link back to their source at the end of the article. The "economy" section is a bit weaker, with the first quote having its in-text citation in the middle of the quote and then going on to another, longer quote immediately after with no elaboratory writing on the information being quoted. Additionally, many topics mentioned in this section likely have their own articles but only two of them link back to those articles. That section also depends entirely on only one source, with multiple citations back to it throughout the text, despite not differentiating the page number those are sourced from, thus making either the multiple citations irrelevant or requiring specific page numbers. They do however, have some reliable sources and a decent structure for the article so far. Additionally, their coverage seems to be fairly neutral, with no biases being introduced. Despite some qualms, this is a well written article so far and I look forward to reading the rest of it in the future. I will also be making sure to follow their example in my own work when I begin to focus on developing a level of depth, as they have a reasonable level of depth to the topic without diving too deep.