User:Pfromberger/Josh Katz/Rme.ust7 Peer Review

I liked the lead to your article. I thought your article was fairly unbiased. The only suggestion I would have for that would be to maybe be careful about using 'famous' in the lead but other than that it looked good. I think the sources you used looked reliable and that they would be approved by the wiki editors. I tried finding links for his book and the article he published but I couldn't find any on wikipedia itself. Maybe you could find a possible link for those if there's any good ones available. Overall, I thought your article was very interesting and well laid out but stayed in a neutral tone.

A few of the changes that I made was adding a link to The New York Times and The Upshot wikipedia articles. I noticed that sometimes you wrote New York Times and at other times you wrote NY Times. I changed those all to The New York Times to make it a bit more formal. I changed the phrasing of the first sentence under the notable works section to make it less repetitive.

1. The article does a really good job highlighting the career of Josh Katz. You also did a good job at remaining neutral and finding good sources to use.

2. I think it'd be beneficially to go more in depth with his more significant works and expand on the Notable Works section.

3. Adding more detail and talking more about the individual works by Katz.

4. I liked how many sources you had. I think that's something I can work on with my article.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)