User:Carolinehardingggggg/Morrison–Grady Plan/Josibgrbbn Peer Review

General info
Carolinehardingggggg
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Carolinehardingggggg/Morrison–Grady Plan
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Morrison–Grady Plan

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.)

Some information was added to the lead in order to give context for the new content in the rest of the article. The lead includes an introductory sentence and relevant information to the rest of the article. It does not include an overview of the articles sections but that may not be necessary since there are not many sections. The content is relevant to the topic and addresses issues relevant to topics that are historically underrepresented. All information is stated in a neutral tone. I think the main article body could be broken up into many smaller sections in order to make it easier to read and understand. Most of the sources seem to be listed correctly, but there does seem to be an error in the format of the last source. Some sources have page numbers and some do not which could be a potential mistake. The actual content is all clear and concise, with mostly work on formatting the article left. This could mean adding the original images from the first article back or adding new images that relate to the added content.