User:Noahjack2001/Bankruptcy Act of 1800/HeatherSchimming Peer Review

General info
Noahjack2001
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Noahjack2001
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Bankruptcy Act of 1800

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.)

Under the guidelines of the Lead, this draft is sufficient in giving a general and concise overview of the information that will be presented in the entire article. You add another section discussing what this act provided for the start up for the United States and how this played in establishing the first financial culture within the infrastructure. It's detailed enough that I know where it's going.

The overall content is in depth and for the most part neutral. There was one instance when discussing the likelihood of bankruptcy that somewhat bordered on non-neutral language ("fortunately"), but other than that, the article is relatively straightforward.

It seems that you are adding about as much new information as there was originally published within the article which is good and gives it substantially more depth. No references/footnotes have been added yet, but the information seems structured well-enough that wouldn't be an issue adding that in.

No images are in the draft and looking at the original article, there is only one. I would suggest that more images be added, if a photo of the announcement of the act or the act itself exists, that would be sufficient. Are there any newspapers that illustrate the act or have headings about the repeal in 1803? That would help cement concepts and information in reader's minds.

I think overall, the article is a good revision of the original. There is almost double the information added and each section does well to build off of the other. I think my biggest suggestion would be to find images that corroborate dates/repeals and double check for non-neutral language. Adding in sources will be easy later, and you already have links to other related articles. It looks like there are relevant and newer sources, especially Calloway that we just read. Since there are only three new sources, I would use others you may have or find more to supplement your research, so that there are no contradicting opinions. But overall, good job!