User:Sbonesan/Democracy in America/AVIDBick Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Sbonesan


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * N/A (reviewing the article)


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Democracy in America

Evaluate the drafted changes
Since I didn't see any drafted work (don't worry too much I'm in the same boat so no judgement) I read and will give feedback on the article as it stands. The lead section seems alright, I feel like a brief mention about the book's importance today could make it stronger. in terms of content, I feel like the article could use an additional section about the discussion of race in the book (basically the section we read for class). That would also help fill in an equity gap in the article. As already visible in the article, there is a deficit of citation sources. Sprinkled through the text there are a handful of un-cited claims that seem like they could be original conclusions or comments make by previous editors. Some of the lacking citations (many are noted with citation needed look like they citation might be able to be located in chapters of the book we didn't read. So if you are able to find sources to add as citation to some of the un-cited claims that could really help the article's credibility. In terms of organization, this article really seems to be struggling as I found the organization confusing. First is that I feel like the summary section should be after the sections about the two volumes to make the flow of the reading more chronological and standard. Second is the weird notes/kinda citation list at the end of each section about the volumes. I tried but it was hard to understand what the notes were referring to (sections of the text I would guess?). For any images I feel like the one included already is sufficient. Overall the article needs a section about the discussion about race in the text (most important in relation to our class), clearer and more streamlined organization, and additional citations.