User:Sgm123445/London Conference of 1946–1947/Middlebury2026 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) sgm123445


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sgm123445/London_Conference_of_1946%E2%80%931947?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * London Conference of 1946–1947

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead: The lead in the article does not appear to be updated but I think it is okay without updating since the lead was written in the published article already. The lead has an introductory sentence but does not show explicitly the topics addressed. The lead is concise and supported by the rest of the article.

Content: The content is relevant and sources are from 1947 so they are up to date with the article. However there is one source that added additional unneeded information since it is from 1945 and the content added couldn't possibly have predicted the events in 1947. This content definitely filled a content gap since this was an added heading. This whole topic seems to be under represented so anything added would have been an upgrade. The content added is a majority a block quote and I think it should be quoted and should be contributed to the conference it was spoken at. Either that or the quotation should be paraphrased.

Tone/Balance: The added info appears to be neutral. However the use of a large quote could be better synthesized to show a more balanced amount of perspectives. I think there could have been more information added about why Britain couldn't solve the problem and passed it on to the United Kingdoms. Maybe including some information about the outcome of passing the problem over to the United Kingdoms. What did the United Kingdoms propose? How did that conference end? I don't think there was an attempt to persuade, the delivery seems neutral.

Sources and References: There is no references in the sandbox but looking at the published article it looks like there were good academic sources used. However source 20 is in relation to an animated movie and is not appropriate for an academic article. In all sources, URLs don't work. I also think that the first section of the outcomes could use more than one supporting source and it would be a stronger article if more sources were tied together. There are academic sources available if Jstor is consulted: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2615148, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3880008, https://www.jstor.org/stable/30026633. I would also recommend looking at ILL and finding some academic secondary sources.

Organization: It is well written but most of the content in the article is one block quote so the article as a whole could be enriched by additional information.

Images and media: N/A

Overall impressions: The content added addresses a gap that needs to be adjusted however content is missing to make the added section more comprehensive. There is good use of primary sources which could be supported further by the accompaniment of academic secondary sources.