User:Yazzymine688/Michael (poem)/Babybear444 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Yazzymine688


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yazzymine688/Michael_(poem)?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Michael (poem)

Evaluate the drafted changes
The added "background" content is relevant and the sources appear to be reliable, from academic and university sources. In the second sentence, you begin by saying "According to Page," which is the last name of an author/source you have not introduced. I would rewrite this and give a more robust introduction of the source. Say something like "According to historian Judith Page in (source)..." The third sentence is a little vague, as you refer to a lot of historical phenomenon without any context. You might consider adding links on words like "enclosures" or "industrialization of England," or just expand on this history in the section. I would also be careful about some of the descriptors you use; "profound" might not be the right word here. Maybe even just leave it out, making this more objective: "The industrialization of England went against/clashed with/disrupted the English policy of enclosures which led to the suffering of rural workers." (leave out "all" in "(all) led to the suffering of rural workers.") If your really want to expand here, you could even explain further how workers suffered and where that suffering is reflected in the poem.

As far as article balance, the existing lead section is a little long. Consider creating a new section (maybe "Poem Summary" or "Story") starting with the second paragraph in the lead. Also consider finding a new place for the two short sentences at the end of the lead, as they seem to be misplaced.

This is a good start, and I think with a little rearranging and some additional background information, you have made a solid contribution to the article.