User:TheBigGorilla/Erik the Red/Deathstar00 Peer Review

General info
TheBigGorilla
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:TheBigGorilla/Erik the Red
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):It has been updated

English Peer Review
Hello!

The changes provided were very beneficial to the Wikipedia article! You did an excellent job to fix the structure of the article by including more information as well as changing original body text so it was referencing him by his name instead of using pronouns.

___________________________________________

The structure is good, not much too change as it was already presented in a way that makes sense and is easy for readers to digest. Similar to the bolding of subheadings in each heading, which is more pleasing for the eye. There wasn't a whole lot to elaborate or change with this. I will add one thing, I feel this was a little wordy/run on.

Example:

Erik purposefully gave the land a more appealing name than "Iceland" in order to convince potential settlers as he explained, "people would be attracted to go there if it had a favorable name"

Change to:

Erik purposefully gave the land a more appealing name than "Iceland" because potential settlers "... would be attracted to go there if it had a favorable name" per Erik's own words.

___________________________________________

The edits to create a more neutral toned article were details that were "minor" but can hold a major impact subconsciously on the readers. The body text went from having a negative biased tone to neutral and professional with the edits.

___________________________________________

Your perspective on the matter was not biased sounding, nor did it appear you were trying to persuade readers on any viewpoints. The sources used were good due to the fact that they are from reputable and reliable sources. Historians and professionals in the fields. I cannot translate the one source, as I don't speak Icelandic nor was there a translated version on the site. I could've used Google translate, however when trying to provide accurate information, any scholar or academic peer know that's not a reliable or good idea. However I did the other source that you did provide and it was very pertinent/relevant to your additions.

Granted there were multiple uses for both sources, I feel that it was still done tastefully. We're adding quality, not quantity.

Overall, as a history fan I think the article was a fun and interesting project. The additions and changes were beneficial and had purpose. Great job! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathstar00 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)