User:Lulj2/Fort Ross, California/R. Culverwell Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Lulj2


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fort_Ross,_California&oldid=1070324558
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fort_Ross,_California&oldid=1070324558
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fort_Ross,_California&oldid=1070324558

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 is a fascinating part of the history of the Pacific Coast about which I previously knew little. It seems like this article is already reasonably developed, but I like the changes you're making. At a glance, one of the main problems I see with the article is the balance of content- it goes into a large amount of detail on the Russian and American history of the site, but there's almost no mention of the indigenous history. Of course it's most notable for being a Russian settlement, but I feel like it should at least address the pre-settlement history and any Russian-native interactions (if applicable- again, I don't know much about the site). I do like the detail you added to the cemetery section- was that based on the sources originally cited? Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't look like any new sources have been added, so I would just confirm that everything is properly cited and that you incorporate any recent scholarship. Another thing I would check is whether any other sections need to be expanded as well; the cemetery information seems important, but is it disproportionate? Not saying it is- just asking. Perhaps another section that could use some work is the lead; as it stands, it seems a bit too brief for the level of detail of the rest of the article. Perhaps it could use a sentence or two outlining the site's content and a bit more on its historical significance. Some other existing sections of the text could maybe use a bit of reworking as well- the first paragraph of the "History" section, for instance, seems a bit awkward. --R. Culverwell (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)