User:Yvette Dana/Cardiff Giant/Ecp7201 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Yvette Dana


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Cannot Find
 * Updated: Cardiff Giant
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cannot Find
 * Updated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yvette%20Dana/Cardiff_Giant?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Updated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yvette%20Dana/Cardiff_Giant?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hey Yvette, I cannot find the sandbox version of your article. When I click the link it says no page exists. Do you have a version you can send to me to look over?

Best,

Ella

Updated:

Lead: The lead is concise and provides information relating to the content of the article. In the first few sentences I think that "was" should be changed to present tense to say "is". "Petrified man" is in quotes but there is no source after the quote. I am not sure if you need a citation there. Or you could take "petrified man" out of quotes and explain that it was claimed to be a petrified man but in actuality is carved from gypsum. Other than that the lead seems to provide good information. You could elaborate on this point "He covered the giant with a tent and it soon became an attraction site" to emphasize that the act of turning the giant into a tourist attraction was a lucrative venture---which you do get into later in the article.

Content: the content is clearly written and relevant. The only thing that could be altered in the organization of the article. I think that creation and discovery could be separated into two distinct categories. And the same goes for Exhibition and Exposure as a fraud. These two ideas seem like they might benefit from becoming their own sections. That could allow you to elaborate on both. But other than that the content is well written, and the citations are good as well!

Tone: the tone is neutral and presents facts with sources.

Sources: the citations that you have are clear and well done. There are a few places where a claim is made without a source. For example the first sentence reads, "The Cardiff Giant was one of the most famous archaeological hoaxes in American history" which is a compelling first sentence however, this claim is not cited so definitely add that! Furthermore there are some places where you might be able to expand the sources. For example in exhibition and exposure as a fraud portion you mention how archaeologists claimed the giant was a fake. It could be interesting to add some more information from that controversy.

Overall: the information that you have added is really well done! your tone is neutral and you explain many important facts and details. The sources are diverse and reliable. I think the article is going well! The only major comment I have is to play around with the organization and consider separating your section so you can give yourself more room to elaborate on each part of the hoax. Additionally it could be interesting to include more details about the controversy over the media and how different views of the hoax were circulated throughout communities both academic and religious.

Let me know if you have any questions about any of these comments!

best,

Ella