User:Dustyrose.bloss0m/Hostile architecture/Herollama365180 Peer Review

General info
Dustyrose.bloss0m
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Dustyrose.bloss0m/Hostile architecture
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Hostile architecture

Evaluate the drafted changes
The draft in the sandbox seems to be the same as the article on the published page (I cannot identify changes that were made in the sandbox version). However, based on the lead, the last sentence of the second paragraph that talks about the uses of hostile architecture may be better for the first paragraph of the lead, where it talks about the impact of this type of architecture. Further, the lead may want to mention some of the responses to hostile architecture that are mentioned later in the article, including the artistic response section. It seems that the third paragraph of the background section may be missing some references, specifically where it talks about six main concepts of CPTED (these references seem to missing from the main article as well). The first sentence of the identifying hostile architecture section is a bit long and may be able to be broken up into a topic sentence and an example of Sweden for more clarity. Within the sandbox draft, the content seems to be missing references about the content (though I think that may be a function of copying information from the article into the sandbox). Overall, the article in the sandbox seems to be well-organized, with thorough information about the topic that presents a balanced and neutral tone.