User:Mpg125/Treaty of Bucharest (1812)/Canesandpeace Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mpg125


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mpg125/Treaty_of_Bucharest_%281812%29?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Treaty of Bucharest (1812)

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.)

Lead


 * The lead could use a more academic writing style. "The Ottoman's had done poorly in the war" is a claim without much description or evidence.
 * "Shortly after these battles Russia decided it was time to make peace." Why did they decide to make peace? Why would they make peace with the Ottomans and not the other threats? Some context would complete this sentence
 * it could also be written to flow better and use some transition words. It goes straight from the Ottomans to the Russians without much of a transition
 * The content doesn't quite match the important information from the article. I think more about the end of the war and the treaty negotiations should be included instead of purely the motivations of each party

Content


 * There are some claims which aren't backed by any evidence. "Russians then destroyed the Ottoman fleet for good to establish naval supremacy" - How did they do it, when, where? Some background information and more content would improve the article to replace these claims.
 * The negotiations section would benefit from more information about each party and person involved and what role they played. This article is about the treaty, so who played a major role in shaping it and tell what they did.
 * I think there could be a section added which goes through the aftermath of the treaty. Was it abided by or did someone break it? what happened to the relationship between the Ottomans and the Russians in the years after?
 * "Initially Russia refused to modify the peace terms to give the Ottomans any benefit" - would there be a better way of saying this, one with an academic style and more information?
 * The legacy section is also very short and could use a search for more content and development of the section
 * I think some pictures could liven up the article. A map detailing the lands in treaty discussions and even the war would be a benefit. Possible images of the main negotiators could improve the page
 * links to other wikipedia pages would be a good improvement to aide readers and allow for transition of topics and pages

Tone and Balance


 * For the most part this article does well at staying neutral and sticking with the facts
 * "The Ottoman's had done poorly in the war" and other claims without evidence from the war like statistics should be changed out with the necessary information which conveys the same idea without implying it is an argument
 * The article is on the treaty so I think there needs to be an emphasis on making the negotiations and terms sections larger with more content which is directly related to the treaty instead of the biggest section being the background currently. The background is important but the war has its own wikipedia page. This page focuses on the treaty

Organization


 * The section breakdown is successful and allows for a common flow through the page
 * An aftermath or result section would be a good addition after the terms section to speak on the aftermath and impact of the treaty
 * The background section could just be called the Russo-Turkish War of 1806 instead of making a sole subsection within background.

Sources


 * There are no sources listed for most of the sentences. An emphasis should be placed on finding sources and citing them in the draft/article.
 * The original article has a good breakup of sources and references which I think works
 * If any information can be backed up by a secondary source it would be good to cite that source, too. Not much credibility on the page right now.

Overall there have been some good additions to this page. A background section about the war and a negotiations section have improved the content. The article could also use a development of the context and information in each section and an academic writing perspective along with some pictures.