User:Zayanmoses/Political journalism/Maliacouser Peer Review

-Zayan
 * 1) I am confused about "I am planning on using different sources". They talk about what these sources will talk about which is great, but are they adding in sources to already written material or are they going to add to the article and cite the sources they listed? Just be more explicit about what you're adding.
 * 2) I like the idea of time progression of political journalism almost like a timeline because that is purely factual. However, it then goes into "why it's necessary" which could be opinion based. In that same paragraph it uses language like 'most', 'many', and 'may' which are not showing confidence in a factual piece of writing. So, I would just focus on making sure it's factual and using strong language.

I agree with your idea for making a clearer focus on the factual points of the article instead of the possibly opinionated ones. Thanks!

I completely agree. I think that necessary is the perfect word to describe it, and I will be sure to make it as factual as possible.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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.)