User:Righteye1234/Presidency of Ronald Reagan/Barkerke Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Righteye1234


 * Link to draft you're reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Righteye1234/Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Presidency of Ronald Reagan

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

·       Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? – A new lead has not been added. I wasn’t sure if this was a new section or if this was an edit to the current article

Content

·       Is the content added relevant to the topic? -Yes the information is relevant to the topic of Ronald Reagan’s presidency although I noticed there was some overlap from what had already been touched on in the current Wikipedia article and the addition you are adding. I wasn’t sure if you were editing a certain section of the current article or creating a new topic to add to the existing article.

·       Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes I noticed you included information from the regan library and articles as recent as 2016

·       Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - I think that some of the wording you used could be changed or edited out in order to strengthen your contributions. For example when you say “strengthened the military like never seen before” I felt like this was a little big vague and it may be good to expand on this kind of statement to explain how he strengthened the military so it is more clear and could also provide some extra information. Another wording thing I might look at is “Historians and political scientists generally rank Reagan as an above-average president”. The word “generally” here made this sentence feel a little unreliable to me.

·       Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? - Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? – No, if this is an addition it is covering topics that are already touched upon within the current article but if this is an edit then it is touching on topics currently already covered.

Tone and Balance

·       Is the content added neutral? – I felt like for the most part yes. When you say things like “Leaving office in 1989, Reagan held an approval rating of 68%. This rating matches the approval ratings of Franklin D. Roosevelt and later Bill Clinton as the highest rating for a departing president in the modern era” it is worded in a neutral way and come across like a well written Wikipedia article to me! There were some wording I would adjust in order to make your addition more neutral. For example, “during the days of WW2 he understood the strength of America and how it can make a masterpeice out of the spare parts of ruin” comes off as fairly speculative and not as factual as the other parts of your contribution.

·       Are there any claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position? - I felt like most of the information provided was neutral but some of the wording like “advanced the true meaning the The land of the free and home of the brave” felt a little biased toward Regan as being a good president. I wasn’t sure about a source on this so I just wasn’t sure if this was as neutral as it could have been.

·       Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: As I mention above, I think you have done a great job but I am not sure if this is a new addition to the article or if this is a draft for an edit of the current article. If it is an addition you have touched on a few things that are already mentioned in the current Wikipedia article.

Sources and References

·       Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? – Some of the information provided is backed up by reliable sources but some I didn’t see sources for. The following are areas I felt could have used a citation


 * “in american history he helped american businesses and middle class families thrive and get to take part in the growth of the american economy through reaganomics”
 * “Due to Reagan's impact on public discourse and advocacy and expansion amongst influence when it came to modern conservatism swept the nation onto a new path that promoted and advanced the true meaning the The land of the free and home of the brave”

·       Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? -  Yes, I thought you used a good variety of sources so far for this addition to the article!

·       Are the sources current? - Yes you have used current articles and current websites for your sources

·       Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)- It depends on what you are intending to add to the article but I felt like you had some good sources to draw from for this topic.

Organization

·       Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes I felt like your contribution so far has been clear and easy to read. Something I am doing is going to current Wikipedia articles and reading to try and match the tone!

·       Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - There are a few spelling errors such as “freating” and masterpiece and America needs to be capitalized.

·       Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - My guess is you are just getting started on your addition and as you add thing you will break them down into sections as you gather more information!

Overall impressions

·       Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? – As stated above it looks like you are just getting started on adding your edits to your sandbox. I think you have some good sources and as you fledge your contribution out a bit it will come together. My suggestion would be to add a note to imply whether you are adding a new section to the article containing new information or if you are editing a certain section and which section you are currently working on editing in order to assist Wikipedia editors in combing through what you’ve written.

·       What are the strengths of the content added/ How can the content added be improved? - I felt like you did a really good job at the beginning of the article with your writing style and matching the overall tone of a Wikipedia article and that you found good sources to draw information from! I would just be clear on what you intentions are as far as your addition (adding new information or editing an existing portion of the article) and make some small adjustment to some of the wording!