User:Downerchannel/Traffic sign/MichaelFHatt Peer Review

General info
Downerchannel
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Downerchannel/Traffic sign
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Traffic sign

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.)

The lead has been updated.

Yes, the lead includes an introductory statement that describes the topic.

Yes, the article includes a description of its sections.

Yes, it provides new information.

The lead is concise.

The content is relevant.

The content is up to date.

The reference to ClearviewHWY is missing its date.

I would say this is an underrepresented topic.

The content is neutral all around.

Yes, the content is backed up by secondary sources.

Yes, the content accurately reflects what the sources say.

It is unclear whether the authors are diverse, but they do seem credible.

These sources seem to be optimal, I do not see a need to replace them.

Yes, the links work.

The content is well-written.

One minor error, the word "effects" should be changed to "affects" in the sentence "Increased X-height and counters specifically help with letter distinction and reduced halation, which especially effects aging drivers."

Yes the content is well organized.

No added images.

Yes, the article is supported by notable sources.

The sources accurately portray what is written.

Yes, the article follows the patterns of other articles.

Yes, the article links to other articles.

The content does improve the overall article as it includes relevant and important information about traffic signs. Something that could be added, is the month and day of the sources. And as I mentioned before, ClearviewHWY is the only reference without a date entirely.