User:Sawadoky/User:Sawadoky/sandbox/PiratePale Peer Review

=General info[edit] ==


 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Pirate Pale, Avery
 * Link to draft you're reviewing.
 * User:PiratePale/sandbox - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Red Lake shootings - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Red Lake shootings - Wikipedia

Lead In
Your article looks good, and it looks like you have good sources. but everything is just all over the place, I feel like you just have to organize it and put things together. And I'm going to steal your first section idea! I think I could improve my article by having background as my first section.

Lead section
You're on a great start on your lead section, I feel like you just have to add on to it, on your background section you talked about children lives on red lake but later on the article there's economics, politics, and internet activities which were not talked about on the lead section.

Structure
You could improve your article structure by moving all the links down, adding more information on your sections and grouping everything together. and I feel like you could remove your "general sources" section, once you add your links on Wikipedia it'll group them on the bottom as "references" for you. And your conclusion is kind of drawn to unemployment only, you forgot to talk about the suicide and quality of life you mentioned in your heading.

Neutral content
From the information on your article, only your first paragraph on your background section doesn't seem neutral. you had the sentence " A reported 81% said that they had considered suicide, and nearly 50% said that they had attempted it." You could try saying " 81% of people living on red lake surveyed..." so your claims are not based on unnamed people/ groups. and your focused a little too much on the negative side of people living on red lake. try adding some positive point of views too.

Reliable sources
You have some pretty good links, most of them ends in .org and .gov, and some are from reliable websites. You don't have any unsourced statements but you some sources with no summary for it.

Reviewer Reflection
Based on this I plan to

2. review my article and make sure everything is grouped together
 * 1) Have a background section

3. review my article and make sure I stay neutral