User:Emmareside/Harold Lasswell/Mbour181 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Emmareside


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Emmareside/Harold Lasswell


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Harold Lasswell

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 of the article is a bit long. There are 4 paragraphs of 'introduction' which is a bit excessive. I would recommend you make it a bit shorter and only add the key points to the lead. You seem to have some information about his life, where he studied, etc. With this you could possibly add a new paragraph to the article and put some information about Harrold Lasswell life (you could remove some of the more specific information that does not necessarily need to be in the lead and add it in this category and it could give some more content and information for the article). The few information you added to the lead part though (especially the source) makes it more precise and easier to understand.

The content seems very relevant and up to date. There were some important contributions added which is great. The tone and balance is very neutral and only provides facts and information (no personal opinion at all) which is a strong point of the article. The first source you added is very good; lots of information, academic article, credible, updated very recently. The second one is a bit outdated; however, I see it is a bibliographical memoir probably only used in the lead for one small piece of information, therefore the fact that the article is a bit old is not that important. The organization is excellent and the way you are editing your sandbox draft also makes it very clear as to what your contributions are. I don't know if this would be relevant to the article, but maybe adding an image of Lasswell's communication model could be interesting. It does talk briefly about his model in the existing article; however, for visual learners, it might be a good idea to see how the model works with an image.

Overall, great work!