User:Elasezgin/Montlake Cut/JulianaRios11 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Elasezgin


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Elasezgin/Montlake Cut


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Montlake Cut

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

-The lead provides a concise overview of the Montlake Cut's location, but does not present an overview of the newly introduced major sections. I would recommend changing the lead slightly so that it reflects the new sections.

Content:

-The content presented seems to be up to date and very relevant. I think that the expansion on the history of the cut was a really good idea and it provides a lot of relevant background for readers, particularly in the expansion on the indigenous history of the cut. The history overview included on the right hand side is also well done and gives the reader a brief and concise history of the cut. Overall, I think the added content really adds to the article.

Tone and Balance:

-I think that the tone and balance is well done as well. The phrasing stays very neutral and unbiased. It does seem like the history section of the article is much more expansive than the other sections, which could potentially be shortened in order to present a more cohesive article.

Sources and References:

-The references all appear to be reputable and well cited, and all seem to be current.

Organization:

-There are some brief grammar mistakes within the history section that should be reviewed and fixed, and the history section overall could use some revision in order to shorten it and make it more concise. Other than this, I think the article's improvements look great!