User:Sawyerbl/San Jose Y Las Animas/Oliver Lizzhelm Peer Review

General info
Sawyerbl
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Sawyerbl/San Jose Y Las Animas/Bibliography
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer Review Lead In:

The article does a great job at providing details. I was very surprised at all the facts we knew, such as the number of guns on the ship and the exact location of the shipwreck.

I would suggest the author renames the third paragraph, adds in-text citations, and add links to other relevant pages. Links to relevant pages would help people quickly learn about anything that may be confusing. The most important thing the author could add is in-text citations; the citations that the draft currently has have not yet been inserted into the article, which would make it more difficult for readers to find the sources. Some of the grammar in the last paragraph doesn't appear to be completely correct.

I noticed that my article was also lacking in links to other relevant articles.

Article Lead Section:

After reading the lead-section, I am satisfied with the importance and summary if the topic. After reading the rest of the article, I think it may be worth talking about the discovery of the shipwreck in the lead section.

I think the lead section does a great job at giving all parts of the article equal weight. The mention of the 8-inch airlifts may not be needed.

Structure:

The sections are organized in a sensible and chronological order. I think the sections are all important to the article. Nothing appears to be that off-topic

The article does not appear to be missing any significant viewpoints and does not attempt to persuade the reader in any way.

Neutral Content:

The article generally refrains from using emotional language. The article is about a darker subject, but speaks about it about as objectively as possible.

Sources:

The article lacks in-text citations, so it is difficult to determine what source(s) are being used in any given sentence. Some of the sources are listed more than once. The 6th, 7th, and 10th citations appear to lead to the wrong place.

Reflection:

Based on this review, I plan to add more external links, reconsider some of my language that may not be entirely neutral, redo my lead section, and possibly remove one section that doesn't really belong.