User:ThorsTumTum/Seguro Obrero massacre/III.V.MDCCLXX Peer Review

General info
(ThorsTumTum)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ThorsTumTum/Seguro_Obrero_massacre?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Seguro Obrero massacre

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:

- Yes, one sentence was edited that reads more clearly.

- Yes, it very clearly explains the main topic.

- Yes, i believe it clearly sets up the sections that are covered within the erst of the article.

- No it mentions only what is discussed in the article.

- It is concise, and well organized.

Content:

- Yes it is relevant.

- I wouldn't say their is content missing because it is pretty concise re-telling of the motives and events.

Tone and Balance:

- It is for the most part neutral, but in the article body, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence, i would remove "as well". In paragraph 4, 2nd sentence, i would remove "mowed down". the 1st seems grammatically unnecessary, and the 2nd seems biased as negative. While this was a negative event, the article should remain more neutral on this particular piece of the story.

Also in paragraph 5, at the end of the 2nd sentence, if a citation could be found, i think it would be useful here.

Sources and References:

- There seems to be only 3-4 sources used to back up the entire article. I believe their sould be more sources to represent the story to a better extent. While this is a very short piece, the events still impact a country, and an ideology; therefore the topic needs and should have a few more sources.

Organization:

- Yes, from the places I've been able to see that were edited, they are well written, but the once place i would change, is my first recommendation above.

- Yes, everything is organized well.

Overall Impressions:

While this is a short piece, it is clear and to the point. I shows the events in enough detail. But i think this article could benefit from additional sources. Above i mentioned a phrase that has a touch of bias in my opinion, "mowed down", once that is changed it should read more neutral. I think a majority of the changes made are good, and allow the piece to read more organized and concise. But there still only a few sentences that could still use attention.

Especially in the paragraph of the article body that discusses Alessandris potential involvement, as well as what his response was, this section could use more sources to secure what the scholars have decided on as the truth of Alessandris involvement.