User:Transientchinchilla/Siege of Kars/Jasonholler Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Transientchinchilla


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Transientchinchilla/Siege_of_Kars?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Siege of Kars

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.)

Hi! Here's my peer review of your work so far:

Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - A lead hasn't been added to the article. I think if you are planning on working on this aspect of the article you could potentially use the first sentence of the article, which I think does a great job of introducing your subject. After that, if you add a few sentences to follow covering the changes you made to the article, I think you would have a solid Lead.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, I see that you outlined the siege from the first sighting of Russian troops to the surrender of the fortress. Aside from the information, you still need to cite your edits, I don't see any references throughout the article. Additionally, while the information you added does a good job giving the reader an idea of the progression of the overall siege, there are grammatical and spelling errors throughout the additions. This shouldn't be too hard to fix, as most of the errors are simply spelling words incorrectly and should only take another read to fix.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - Yes, I think adding a section detailing the casualties from each side would be helpful for painting an accurate picture in the reader's mind. Additionally, the first paragraph under the "Siege of Kars" section should be moved into the "Background" section, as it only talks about the soldiers garrisoning the fortress before the battle, which changed significantly by the time the actual siege began. Additionally, the quote in the final paragraph not only doesn't have a citation but also feels unnecessary. The information it tells the reader can be paraphrased into something that doesn't require quotation marks.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Yes you mention the significance of women and children in the provisions that the defending force had, two groups that are often ignored in the telling of siege battles but are still significant. I think that this is a nice touch and helps the reader better understand the conditions of the defenders during the siege, and that more can be added to that section if that's something you are interested in/if there is more information about that topic.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - Again, I don't know whether the information you added or information from the original article is accurate as there aren't any sources listed or references within the article. Adding citations to all the specific claims you make would go a long way in ensuring the reader has confidence in the accuracy of the article. For example, adding citations after a sentence like, "After many delays, primarily put in place by Napoleon III, Omar Pasha left the Crimea for Sukhumi with 45,000 soldiers on 6 September."
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No, all the information you added does a great job of depicting scenes of the siege from a neutral point of view.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - I think that although you did a great job at showing the readers the perspectives of the defending forces in the siege, adding information about the Russians could be helpful for the reader to fully understand the siege. Specifically, I think that if you added the Russian perspective for information such as the provisions and morale of the forces like you did for the garrison troops, it would paint a better picture for the reader.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - The information you added does a great job in that it is very clear in the sequence of events, however, the article could use another look as there are many parts that are a little messy to read. One example I found, "The Russians were forced to retreat, chased by allied forces, a calvary attack likely would have been able to finally defeat the Russian forces however no such units existed due to the siege that had gone on for nearly three months." This is a run on sentence and is a little clunky to read. Maybe adding a period after the "allied forces" would make it read better.

Overall Impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - Yes, the information, although lacking citations and sources, definitely adds to the quality of the article because of the sheer amount of information it adds. It gives a concrete timeline for the siege which does a great job of taking the reader through the siege month by month. The content adds a lot of description of both the timeline of fighting between the two sides, as well as descriptions of the garrison force's morale.
 * How can the content added be improved? - Again, citations will make the article much better, as well as adding more information about the Russian side of things.

Overall, I think the additions are great minus a few critiques, namely the lack of sources, the slight imbalance of information (shifting towards the Ottoman side of things), as well as grammatical and syntax errors.

- Jason