User:Nyxtingale/Stereotypes of African Americans/BridgetMn Peer Review

General info
Nyxtingale
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nyxtingale/Stereotypes_of_African_Americans?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Stereotypes of African Americans

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.)

This user has drafted three proposed sections of edits in their sandbox, all of which pertain to the body/context of the article.

Lead:

- The present lead of the article is detailed and provides an in-depth explanation on the subject

- The lead covers all present, relevant information and covers what is discussed later thoughout the article

- no comments or proposed edits on the lead

Structure:

- The structure of the present article is easy to follow and organized, discussing history first and then following with other sections such as media

- The drafted sandbox has no suggestions to change the formatting; however, it maintains the same outline as the original article, which is beneficial as the present outline is easy to follow

Balancing:

- All present sections of the article appear to be balanced. Some sections have more or less detail due to the variety of information, not to the extent of concern

- The drafted edits in the sandbox maintain this. Adding some more detail to the outlined sections, the editor maintains revisions of approximately 250 words and is keeping the work they have presently examined and want to edit balanced

- The edits and added information are not redundant. It allows for a deeper understanding of the subject and the new information is helpful.

Neutrality:

- The drafted edits maintain neutrality and fit within the voice of the current author

- The way the editor writes is increasingly useful for and clear for understanding the content

- Although discussing a serious issue, the editor maintains a neutral voice even when discussing difficult topics

Sources:

- the author proposed two new sources to their edited sections

- These sources are listed at the bottom of their sandbox and have been properly included into the revised section

All in all, although the sandbox only demonstrates some current minor changes, the edits proposed are quite good, and I like the track the editor is on. I would love to see more proposed edits from them, as only one section is covered, which makes critiquing difficult. Presently, I see no errors in their work besides minor grammatical errors such as the use of commas in unneeded places and some minor word tweaks such as changing "publishing" to "publication" for the flow of the work; however, this is small and the work still makes sense regardless.