User:El.Guapo6564/Westinghouse Atom Smasher/Patkeo6 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

El.Guapo6564


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:El.Guapo6564/Westinghouse_Atom_Smasher?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Westinghouse Atom Smasher

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall, the current article additions are great and I think they add a lot of depth to the article. I think the editor was able to add relevant information about the history of the atom smasher, which seemed to be lacking in the original article. The only issues I could see with the article additions have to do with formatting. The third paragraph of the Wartime Efforts section does not have any citations and the citations in the second paragraph are sporadic. The tone of the additions is adequate as well, with the only problem I could see being the first sentence of the History section "The Westinghouse Atom Smasher would not have came to be if it were not for the interest and development of physics in the early 1900s." which could be referenced as making an argument. Other then those minor issues, I think the article additions are good.

Response to Peer Review
The peer review gave much to be changed. I myself am working on the history section of the sandbox. After rereading the draft and reading the review, the intro to the history section does need to sound more neutral and less argumentative. The peer review brought to attention that there need to be more citations in the draft. There will also be more information added to the history section, but the tone will be watched more carefully when additions are made.

Response to Peer Review (Isaiah Glenn)
This peer review made me understand that there are a few grammatical and structural errors that can be remedied to make the article additions a bit better. It also showed that, in my wartime section, that the references could be made a bit better. Overall, it seems like we are heading in the right direction and mainly to focus on some more additions and keep these minor infractions in mind when we continue with the rest of the article.