User:TM-307/Contestado War/III.V.MDCCLXX Peer Review

General info
(TM-307)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TM-307/Contestado_War?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Contestado War

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:

-My peer as of right now has not updated, or edited the Lead.

Content:

-I feel personally there is a lot of information that does lead to the point, but it takes a long time to get to the point. If someone is looking up this topic, they are going to have to sift through all this information to get to it.

Tone and Balance:

- There are definitely a few places that need to sound more neutral.

- Almost more then half of the claims made in this article have no sources to support them.

Sources and References:

- There are only 2-3 sources, i believe it definitely needs a lot more.

- Almost every paragraph needs to have a citation because almost all the statements or claims made have no source to validate that statement.

Organization:

- It is definitely organized, but i found some of the information, especially the section on the 3 monks confusing to follow seeing as they all are referred to by the same name. So for the rest of the article, i don't know which monk is being discussed. I think some places are concise, but not all.

- I also think the lead could mention more clearly the monks, especially the religious part that was played in this event.

- The last sentence before the section on The Conflicts Beginning, it needs to be rephrased. Also in the section where the one monk is famous for his resurrection of a young boy, make sure it says something else like, a child, because their is a discrepancy between the original version of this article and the edited version. Also in paragraph 2 of the body, the 1st, 2nd, sentences need to be rephrased or changed, they read a bit unclear.

Overall Impressions:

I think while this is a short article, there needs to be more sources added. And especially footnotes added to back up claims in the article, there are hardly any listed. There are definitely sentences that read biased, or unclear and a closer look into each section could benefit the articles coherence and overall organization.