User:M1Mikula/Adobe Walls, Texas/Jcutcher Peer Review

Neutral content
Wikipedia articles aim for a neutral point of view. That means they don't attempt to persuade the reader into accepting a particular idea or position.


 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * the article is written in a way that maintains neutrality and only presents facts.
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
 * In paragraph 2, "By the time of the renowned battles," is renowned battles a series of battles or is renowned an unnecessary adjective?
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
 * no
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
 * the article doesn't take a stance from either end, the information is incredible neutral.
 * the article doesn't take a stance from either end, the information is incredible neutral.

Reliable sources
Good articles are built on good sources. When you've read the article, turn to the references section.


 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
 * yes they are connected to a reliable source such as textbooks and peer reviewed journal articles.
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
 * the article used a multitude of sources, nothing is too relient on one source.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!
 * nothing in the article is unsourced.