User:Deb316/Gibson's donuts/Emilyseatvet Peer Review

Lead

- The lead is a very good intro to the article, very detailed but does not give away the entire article. Very concise and easy to read. Great job!

Content

- Content is very relevant to the topic and is very useful to the article. It is very consistent and up to date. So much so that I feel like if I walked in to Gibson's today it would be extremely accurate to the article. No content is in the article that should not be, everything that is in the article should be. It does not deal with an equity gap.

Tone and Balance

- Content is very neutral very nice. Nothing in the article is heavily biased or prejudiced towards one side. NO viewpoints overrepresented or underrepresented very nice. The author does not attempt to persuade the reader in one way or another.

Sources and References

- All content backed up by a secondary sources that are outside of the source itself. Very good sources all check out.

Organization

- Very well written very easy to read and very concise. No spelling or grammatical errors that I can see. Very well organized and broken down into very specific sections.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Deb316


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Deb316/Gibson's donuts


 * 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.)