User:Rcouch13/Linguistic Atlas of the Upper Midwest/Mariafolio Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rcouch13


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rcouch13/Linguistic_Atlas_of_the_Upper_Midwest?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Linguistic Atlas of the Upper Midwest
 * Linguistic Atlas of the Upper Midwest

Evaluate the drafted changes
I think overall the user has done a great job at adding more than what was actually there to begin with. I see a lot of progress has been made so far and everything that is not there, is laid out as titles and sections for me to be able to anticipate what would be in that section. The background section is the most developed so far and I think the section is very easy to read and gives a clear understanding of the the LAUM is, who developed it, and what areas were studied. All content is neutral and appears to be grammatically correct.

I think the user could think about providing a brief summary in the lead section as to what is upcoming in the article and not just an introduction. I do believe the introduction thus far is a solid lead section, but a summary of what the article contains might be considered.

I think including an in-depth methodology section and findings is a great idea to build the body of the article which seems to be the direction the user is going in which is great. I am interested to see what the findings of the study were considering I do not know much about it myself.

I think my main form of constructive criticism is that there seems to be a lack of citations and sources. Throughout the article it looks like very little is cited and there are only two references and I am not sure where the second source is included in the article. The user may have another page they are working on that includes more citations. That is my only main concern as I am just confused of where this information is coming from.

Other than missing citations, the article's progress thus far looks great and it looks like the user is on the right track to making a solid article.