User:Sjones11/Long gun/HarleyForet Peer Review

General info
Sjones11
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I could not find their peer review, so I will be reviewing their main Wiki article Long Gun


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Long Gun
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Long Gun

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.)

First, it should be noted that there is a fairly good amount of data in this article. The beginning section has an excellent description and definition of the term "long gun". After the definition, there is a great comparison between this particular gun from others which really benefits the readers, as they may not know anything about guns. The only downfall to the beginning section of this article is that there could possibly be more. The author could have added more information about "long guns", to make the sentences have more of a flow.

The Small Arms section holds much information on the statistical aspect for different gun barrels. I would suggest changing the subtitle of the section into something that has a better fit for the information that is being read about. By comparing different countries and their different size barrels, the author has a huge advantage here, but show how important this section is by having the proper title. Titles of work either make or break the reading, so it is important to always make sure your title truly flows with the information.

The Advantages and Disadvantages section, in my opinion, is hard to visualize what the bad is versus the good. With that, there needs to be a subdivision between the two. This section is jammed pack with information, which is great! It shows that the author did the proper research needed to understand "long gun". The information is well informative and unbiased, but there simply just needs to be a difference in categories. Having advantages and disadvantages also appears to make the article longer, if their needs to be a certain length.

The Naval Long Guns section appears to be misplaced due to not enough information. Again, if this section was needed for the overall message of the article, then there needs to be more added to the section. Make this section feel as if it belongs and prove to the readers the importance of the history. It is important to always have transition that go along with the reading.

Overall, this WIKI article has a great amount of educational information that can and will be useful to all its readers. There are plenty reliable sources throughout the reading. Some may think that it is too much, but I see these sources as great routes to show background knowledge. Many of the sources seem reliable as well. The only main concern with the article is the organization. If the author adds the proper headings for the subtitles, better flow between sentences, and more categorizing sections, then this article on "long gun" would appear to be really successful.