User:Nash Albrecht/Electric vehicle/Nathan Johnson33 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?
 * 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."
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
 * 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.
 * 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.

= 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?
 * 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.
 * 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!

Your citations are put in correctly from looking at the sources and where you put them; however, I think having more citations would be a good idea. I would've liked to see where you edited it but the article but if you edited the whole thing that's awesome. I didn't find any words that didn't feel neutral and the article didn't say any unnamed groups of people. I think there is not enough sources, I would recommend having one more source. Everything in the source was mentioned appropriately.