User:OaklandGrizzly/John VI of Portugal/Michigan Historian 11 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

OaklandGrizzly


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:OaklandGrizzly/John VI of Portugal
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * John VI of Portugal

Lead
The Lead appears to have been updated. The Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The Lead appears to include descriptions of the article's major sections. The Lead appears to include information that is present in the article. The Lead seems long to me, but since John VI was an important figure and much is known about him, this could be a situation where the Lead could be long. The sentences in the Lead should connect to sections of the article down below. It looks as if you may have made the Lead shorter; this could be useful if it is more straight and to the point.

Content
The content added appears relevant to the topic. The content added appears up-to-date. I cannot tell if there is missing content, since the article is so long, but look to make sure that the information discussed in the Lead appears down below in the article. I do not know if the article focuses on one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
I have not checked through the entire article, but I found a part of it that appears biased to me. The first sentence of the fifth paragraph of the Controversies section reads, "Whatever the King's character may have been, the importance of his reign for a remarkable spurt of development for Brazil and, indeed, for the very unity of that nation is incontestable." The idea of something been "incontestable" does not seem like something that belongs in a Wikipedia article, unless someone else is cited as having made that claim. There could be more claims that sway the reader in a particular way, or there could be some viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented. Look for more instances of this in the article, as there may be more.

Sources and References
Some of the sources appear to be relatively current, but there are so many sources used that I am not sure if all the sources are relatively current. Check through the sources to make sure they are relatively current, accurate, and written by a diversity of authors. One of the links I tried did not appear to work (Cronologia Período Joanino), but another one appeared to work (Manuel Amaral "João VI" source). Check to make sure the links work, although I am not surprised that they would not all work because there are so many sources, which seems to increase the likelihood of there being more links that do not work.

Organization
The content added appeared to be written relatively well, but I did notice what seemed to be a relatively high number of quotations. This should not be the case in a Wikipedia article, as the majority of the article should be in the writer's own words. Look for places in the article where quotes can be converted into paraphrases, however, not every quote has to be converted into a paraphrase. There may be information in our Wikipedia guide that discusses what percentage of an article can be composed of quotes.

Images and Media
The article seems to include images that enhance the understanding of the topic, and the pictures that I looked at are in the Public Domain, so all the pictures should be adhering to copyright regulations (but check to make sure). The pictures are well-captioned and visually appealing.

Overall impressions
Look over the article, and make the changes suggested above. Look for errors in the article (both global and local) and try to fix them. If this is done, the article should be improved.