User:Deep sea coral/Melanie Smith (equestrian)/Katien13 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Deep sea coral


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: There is not a lead section or paragraph that introduces the topic or give an overview of what the article will be about. It does not include sentences that allows readers to know what major sections are composed throughout the page.

Content: The content provided so far is relevant so far. The information is up to date and has dates and statistics. However, it is very limited and does not cover much of the topic. It seems to be missing a lot of facts and information in general.

Tone and Balance: The tone is neutral, including no bias. This is good since it does not have opinions or personal ideas. It does not persuade readers to think a certain way.

Sources and References: The article does include plenty of sources that were used throughout it. The sources seem reliable and legit. For the references linked, they work when clicked on.

Organization: There is not much to evaluate here since it seems like the article is just getting started. There are two headings which does give off a sense of organization, though. The information is not hard to distinguish.

Overall: It seems like this is just a start to the creation of an article. It is good that reliable sources are included and that there are headings. However, there is not enough information to really give a full evaluation. It needs much more to become an actual page.

~