User:Artylearner/Monument Lab/Jameststurner Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Artylearner


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Artylearner/Monument_Lab
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Monument Lab

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.)

Lead:

The Lead seems concise and well written.

Content:

The content seems good but "Projects" might be too broad as it currently stands. Maybe breaking it up into 2 seperate sections (Ex: "Projects" to describe the projects themselves and "Collaborating Artists" as a separate section.

Tone and Balance:

The tone of the revisions seems to be neutral and does not appear to try and persuade the reader about the moral nature of the projects.

Sources and references

sources appear to be reputable. Judging by the new links that I clicked on, everything appears to be reliable and relevant.

Organization:

Content is well written but I would consider breaking up the "Projects" Section into 2 seperate sections.

Images and Media:

There are no images associated with this article. It might be worth looking into an image of one of the projects to include with the page.