User:MariiMarii28/Julia Street/Thenoirroze Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

MariiMarii28


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:MariiMarii28/Julia Street


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead is a strong introduction, however, there are a few grammatical errors within the paragraph with things like "it's self(itself)" "5 star(5-star)" and "In result(As a result)". Aside from those minor areas, the lead perfectly paints what to expect from the article, and illustrates the potential of the rest of the article. The history section seems to be the meat and potatoes of the article. The structure of the paragraph seems to be a bit scrambled, topic-wise, but the flow of the paragraph still works seamlessly. For example, the writer brings up 1833, then proceeds a bit further addressing the 19th century as a whole, then later in the paragraph says "Keeping in mind that it was 1833...". Within the last paragraph of the history section, the writer begins to lose their neutral stand point with the terms "irrelevant", and "gentrification" (most approaches to that word are destined to lose neutral stance). The attractions section seems it could use some more verbal attention, but other than that the article needs some grammatical, and neutral standpoint tweaks.