User:SpencerPaddock/Agricola (book)/Obfuscatiion Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:SpencerPaddock


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
The changes made to the introduction make the information clearer. By omitting filler information, it allows the reader a quicker understanding of information. My peer used language that was less opinionated and provided a far more neutral point of view.

In the summary, my peer once again removed or changed the existing text that read as opiniated or called to draw conclusions that are not exactly possible to be certain of. My peer does a great job in taking out the sensationalizing rhetoric and instead provides cited details of the Agricola. Aside from the editing process, my peer has added an ample amount of information that makes this an actual summary of the text in question. Prior to their edits, the summary section of this article was lacking citations of any sort. The addition of citations is crucial to the integrity of the article as whole, in having none to begin with, my peer made this section credible and informative. My only suggestion for this section would be to add hyperlinks to names such as "Domitian" or "Vespasian."

Next, my peer made edits to the sections titled "Themes." The first sentence is an upgrade in itself in both tone and grammatical arraignment. Once again, this section had zero citations for where the information was coming from. The language was very opinionated and used the phrase "on the one hand... on the other hand" in drawing the original writers opinions regarding the motive of the text. In removing this entirely, my peer has removed the wishy washy assumptions made about the text. This section is now shorter, but is much greater in actual usable content.

Last, the section "Style" is another area that had zero citations or reference material. The first sentence is a awkward to read, and a few grammatical constructions should be added to the following sentences.

Overall, my peer began with almost nothing viable. The article had only ONE citation and in order to corroborate any of the information, my peer had to do his research to validate anything that was already there. The sources in which they did use, were current and scholarly, making them reliable to use in this article. I would suggest keeping an eye out for sentences that are long and include ideas or themes that the common reader might not understand right off the bat. Reading history is a task for some, presenting it in the easiest way possible would benefit the overall article. Seeing as they have already removed the opinionated and seemingly random assumptions made by the original author, the article is a much easier read and is free of any previous bias that was once present. Great work!