User:Aiqin314/Oregon Iron Company Furnace/Liam Raviv Patterson Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Aiqin314


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aiqin314/Oregon_Iron_Company_Furnace?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Oregon Iron Company Furnace

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

Your lead is good! It gives the user clear information and summarizes the main notable features of the Oregon Iron Company Furnace. I think it might be helpful to shorten the lead a little bit too - maybe remove the two last sentences about the water disputes and status as an Oregon landmark. Instead, you could start by saying "The Oswego Iron Furnace is an Oregon landmark" or "is a historical iron furnace..." and end the lead on a strong point like "the Oregon Iron Company was the first to produce pig iron west of the Rocky Mountains."

Content

Content is very, very good! Lots of detail, lots of interesting history about the landmark, and lots of individual proper nouns and other points of interest. The content itself is definitely a really big strong suit for your article -- you did a great job taking the information and condensing it to a Wikipedia page.

Organization

Organization seems good! Generally follows a chronological through-line, which makes it easy for the reader to move from topic to topic. In my article I found it very helpful to add dates to the headers like "Formation of the Oregon Iron Company (1862-1865)", but that structure might not work quite as well for your article. Either way, good job!

Tone and Balance

Tone is strong, but sometimes the phrasing confused me a little. For example, starting with Aaron Olds without clarifying exactly who he is struck me as confusing right at the start. I tried Googling him and it seems like he wasn't a significant enough historical figure to have very much catalogued information about him. Since he isn't a well-known name and he doesn't have an external Wikipedia page you can link to, I suggest clarifying who he is and how he fits in before digging into the furnace.

Sources

Sources feel good! Citations are all in the correct formatting, and you had many different, credible sources backing up each claim. Look out for source #5 (the National register of Historic Places form) because it looks like there was a formatting error when you put in the date.

Overall

Your article looks fantastic! It feels almost done. The formatting can use a tiny bit of work here and there and the structure might need some fine-tuning. Otherwise, your content is really strong, the information is engaging and informative, and I believe you've stayed well within Wikipedia's standards of quality. Good job!