User talk:Jahernandez9165/sandbox

Peer Review by Delaney Bertain

-A lead section that is easy to understand: I think that the first sentence could be re-written to make it more straightforward and concise. Maybe by moving the attribution to the Radford Priory into a new sentence, rather than inserting the information into the first sentence? It is definitely important and a good fact to include, but it breaks up the flow of the first sentence. Also, the citation should always be at the end of the sentence, so the first citation should be after the period rather than after "Priory". Overall the lead section has a general overview that describes this manuscript in an understandable way.

-A clear structure: I think the structure is very good. The three sections are all important in describing the manuscript, and I think they should be able to cover a lot of the important information for this manuscript.

-Balanced coverage: The coverage is balanced and equal so far in this article. Obviously it is not completed yet, but so far the progress I would say is balanced. There are no perspectives that the article favors, and overall the information is distributed into the sections in a reasonable way.

-Neutral content: I did not detect any sort of bias in regards to the information presented. The information is pretty straightforward, there is no major argument that is meant to sway the reader.

-Reliable sources: The citations all seem to be reliable and from reputable sources. There are several books cited, as well as scholarly articles that are cited from reputable journals.