User:AndrewPpohl/3D printing/TheEditor0702 Peer Review

General info
AndrewPpohl
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndrewPpohl/3D_printing?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 3D printing

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The user does not make any changes to the lead. However, I believe that he should have made some minor edits. He advocates for moving entire sections out of this Wikipedia article because subarticles regarding these topics exist. For example, the applications section is frequently referenced in such edits. This should be reflected in the lead as well to remove the

Content

The content added, or removed is very relevant to the topic. I found it unique how the user looks at not only this article, but also the relevant sub-articles. This way, he identifies ways he can refactor the article to make the content relevant to the title. A section that the user does make additions to is the history section. He elaborates on the 2000s sections because it was pivotal to the history of 3D printing. I cross referenced the articles he cited and found the content to be up to date from reliable sources.

Tone and Balance

The tone and balance is neutral, as it should be. In fact, the user even improves upon the tone of the article by reducing the level of jargon used. He changes the term AM to additive manufacturing, since that is more understandable to the public. This way, he keeps the content described balanced.

Sources and References

I looked through all the sources the user references, and all of them are reliable and seemingly present accurate information. The research articles mentioned are peer reviewed, and the other sources are from highly reputable organizations and don't require peer reviews.

Organization

The content added is well written, but the user should have made the edits to directly referenced areas in the article by copy and pasting and bolding his edits as instructed. Instead, he just bullet points his edits which makes it slightly confusing for the reader.

Overall Impressions

Overall the author does a great job of making meaningful edits without restating repeated content. His focus on refactoring content within the applications section including quotes is a great addition to the overall clarity of the article.