User:Powderskiing1921/Naval campaign of the War of the Pacific/Michigan Historian 11 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Powderskiing1921


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Powderskiing1921/Naval campaign of the War of the Pacific
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Naval campaign of the War of the Pacific

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.)

Lead
The Lead will be updated to reflect the new content that will be added. The Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The Lead will need to be updated (as stated in the Sandbox Draft) to include a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead is concise. I noticed some a mistake in each Lead sentence. The first sentence should read something like, "The Naval campaign of the War of the Pacific or Saltpeter war was a naval campaign that took place from 1879 to 1884 involving Peru, Bolivia, and Chile undertaken in order to support land forces in the Atacama Desert." The word "imperative" is spelled incorrectly in the second sentence. The third sentence should read, "It resulted in a successful campaign by Chile, and the success of their land campaigns led to the loss of Bolivia's access to the ocean."

Content
The content added is relevant to the topic. The content added is up-to-date. As stated within the article, the Engagements section and table need to be updated. I do not know if the article addresses one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
The content appears neutral. I do not notice any biased claims. As stated before, the Engagements section and table need to be updated. The content does not appear persuasive.

Sources and References
I think that scholarly secondary sources are used and will be used for the article. The sources appear relatively current. The links take me to Google Books, so I think that they might work.

Organization
The content is relatively well-written but check for errors as there appear to be some in the article. The content is well-organized. More content will be added to the article.

Images and Media
The article includes one image: more images will be added to the article. The lone image is well-captioned, although it does not include a year (which may not be a concern). It appears as if the lone image adheres to Wikipedia's copyright violations. The image is laid out in a visually appealing way.

Overall impressions
You are off to a good start. The Engagements section, table, and pictures need updates and additions. Keep making the additions you discussed, and check for errors (both global and local) within the article.