User:CharlesHST/Committee of Public Safety/Shanelynch17 Peer Review

The lead perfectly describes where Charles' additions to the article will appear and discusses the various subjects associated with his chosen topic/article. Charles' introductory sentences succinctly cover the breadth of the subject he plans on discussing while remaining completely neutral on the topic.

When it comes to the three paragraphs that Charles plans on adding to his article, all information contained therein appears to be unbiased, fact based, and tonally neutral. In that sense, Charles undoubtedly achieved his goal.

While Charles provided hyperlinked phrases to relevant and associated Wikipedia pages related to his subject, there appears to be a lack of direct citations and sources added to the end of phrases/ assertions of fact. I am completely positive that this can be fixed in post.

Overall, Charles' additions seem to be vitally important one's to the overall article page itself. More than that, they seem to seamlessly fit in with the previous verbiage utilized in said article.

Nice Job!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)