User:Bsmit24/Damask/Raquelroro Peer Review

General info
Bsmit24
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing- Editing User:Bsmit24/Damask - Wikipedia :
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)-Damask - Wikipedia:

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: Lead has been elaborated and has a great deal of information that explains the subject overall and in detail. The information seems to be used in the purpose to add or elaborate the lead of the original article.

Content: Content correlates with the topic and also adds and clarifies what was previously stated on the original article. It seems that user is trying to add and content that aligns with each year sectioned from the original article. User states that they need to add more information but as of right now is seems to be some good content paragraphs.

Tone and Balance: Tonality and balance of information is good; it helps further explain and provide in depth history about Damask. Article tone seems unbiased, and tonality seems neutral.

Source and References: Sources and references are well organized; linked correctly and support the spot they were assigned too. From the looks of it I was only able to see two references, maybe diversity and more references can help round and get more information into the article.

Organization: Article Draft is well organized and sectioned links and references are also well used and organized.

Images and Media: Not present.

Overall Impressions: Article Draft is headed into the right direction; my only suggestion is to add more cited references as it can help round the article more and also alleviates on the reliance of only one or two sources for all the changes that are proposed to be made in this article.