User:Ricawilo/Rancho Los Alamitos/NyunN Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Anne - @ Ricawilo. NyunN is peer reviewing this article.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ricawilo/Rancho_Los_Alamitos?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Rancho Los Alamitos

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Anne, the following is my peer review for your drafted article. I would like to first comment that it was very confusing/difficult for me to differentiate between which parts in your sandbox you wrote, and which were copy and pasted from the existing published article. In the future, I would recommend you bold your additions, to make it easier for both yourself and your peers to differentiate (Unless you actually wrote and published the existing article, in which case, my apologies!).

Lead


 * The introductory paragraphs are excellent and very detailed, with a perfectly neutral tone. The concluding sentence is strong and lets us know exactly what you are covering next in the body of the article. Great job on introducing the subject!

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, the content in the body is relevant to the topic, and the subject of history was introduced nicely in the lead. As stated before it is a little difficult for me to differentiate between what topics and subtopics were already existing and which were additions made by you, but all the information in the draft is thus far relevant.
 * Is the content added up to date? - The sources all seem to be a bit over ten years old but they are still fairly recent in the early 2000's, thus I do believe the content is up to date and appropriate for the topic, especially for the subject of the history.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - All the existing content is appropriate. I do think that the part that talks about the current Rancho Los Alamitos being adjacent to Cal State Long Beach today can be a new subsection, and you can go in depth further in this section with more details. The article could definitely use more information about the location today; what its purpose is, what it's like, and so forth. A newer/more recent source would be helpful for this.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes, the content seems to be mostly written in a very neutral tone. There are some very very minor instances where they slightly bleed out of neutrality, such as the sentence, "Unfortunately, a financial crisis xxxx", but I think this is too minor to bother changing. The article is strictly sharing the information without swaying the reader any one way.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - I suppose a possible underrepresented viewpoint or party here could be that there is a lack of mention of who the previous owners of Rancho Los Alamitos were, before the Spanish occupation and before Abel Stearns, etc. There is a mention of its 500 C.E - 1780s existence and the Tongva - Gabrieliños, but there could certainly be more information added about the original Peoples who resided there and what the use of the land was in that time.

Sources and References


 * The sources look like they are reliable and accurate. Many do seem to come from the Ranchos Los Alamitos website itself, so perhaps for any other additional information added, other outside sources can be explored to retrieve information from. It might be beneficial to attempt to locate journals or peer-reviewed journals that are related to this topic.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes, the content is well-written. The body of the History section is a bite large and hefty to read without pause, so I would suggest considering organizing this section a bit more by adding some sub-sections where applicable.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - I did not see any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - So far it is organized, although as mentioned above, it could be further organized with the creation of some sub-sections, maybe based on the years and changes in ownership covered in the History. So far the only major point of the topic seems to be the History, so the section does reflect that.

Overall, the article is strong in my opinion, although the creation of more sub-sections would make it a bit easier on the reader, as it is definitely information-heavy with all the dates and numbers; this makes it a bit difficult to read. Wonderful job so far!