User:Riddle2525/Editing/1spidey3 Peer Review

General info
Riddle2525
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Riddle2525/Editing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Editing

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.)

All around there's some solid work in the sandbox that reflects well editing. Nothing is too "difficult" to read and can reach a general audience in a way that they can receive information in a perceptive way. The edit to remove a section discussing how positions in editorial positioning overlaps was sufficient considering how confusing the section was to read. I believe it made the lead of the article flow better and attributes to retaining audience attention.

As for critiques, I have a few that regard syntax errors and proper grammar. The sentence, "Understanding what you write first is a draft, is crucial" could be worded better to avoid confusion. Additionally, the sentence, "To: At U.K. and Australian newspapers, this job is titled as sub-editor" I would delete the word "as" to make the sentence flow better. My last suggestion would be to review the New York Times article for potential biases as a reference. Solely due to the fact that it is limited to only editing your own writing when the article discusses the editing in different perspectives than just your own writing.