User:Sawyerbl/San Jose Y Las Animas/CheyenneGreen Peer Review

General info
Lee - @Sawyerbl
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
The Peer Review

Cheyenne Green: Reviewer

Peer Review Lead In


 * The article provides a great amount of information, that is all reliable, which really impresses me. The article is also very well organized and flows very well. The organization of this article allows the reader to easily understand the article.
 * I would suggest adding a lead-in section to the article, which would improve the readers' ability to understand the importance of the topic and reflect on the important information in the article. Also, the article may be improved by adding sentences in the article that reflect the information of the sources cited in the article. This would improve the structure of the article.
 * The most important edit that would be made to this article would be to add sentences in the article that summarize the information in the sources cited.
 * From this article, I will revise my lead-in section, to make sure readers understand the importance of my topic.

Article Lead In


 * The lead has not been included in this article yet, so it may be a good edit to add a lead into the article that describes the importance of the topic and reflects the most important information in the article. It may also be a good edit to make a note in the article, that a lead is still being improved to be added into the article, while editing.

Structure


 * The sections in this article are organized well, and chronologically, which makes the article flow smoothly, but the article may be improved by creating more sentences within the sections of the article and then adding a citation at the end of the sentences.
 * No sections in the article seem unnecessary or off-topic, but the article may be improved by adding more information to the history section of the article because History may be important when relating to the topic of the shipwreck.
 * The published literature used in the article clearly reflects all the perspectives represented, so there are no specific viewpoints shown in the article.
 * As a reader, I have not been drawn to one specific point of view from the article, so the article does not seem biased.

Neutral Content


 * I could not guess the perspective of the author, from reading the article, so the information in the article seems neutral.
 * There are no words or phrases in the article that don't feel neutral.
 * There are no claims made by unnamed groups of people, so the article seems neutral.
 * The article does a good job of focusing on neutral information because the information is not focused too much on positive or negative information.

Reliable Sources


 * The sources provided in this article are reliable because they come from academic journals.
 * There is a balanced tone in this article because each source is attributed to one or two statements.
 * The sources in this article are listed under each section, but the article could be improved by adding statements that reflect the sources in the article.

Reviewer of Reflection


 * Based on this review, I plan to revise my lead-in section to make sure the readers know the importance of my topic. Next, based on this review, I plan to revise some statements in my article, to ensure they are all related to the source, and the statements are properly cited. Lastly, based on this peer review, I plan to revise the structure of my article, to ensure the article is organized well and flows well to the readers.