User:Grackle.cackle/Protracted social conflict/Skyjay999 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Grackle.cackle


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://w.wiki/9C2F:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://w.wiki/9C2H:

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.)

LEAD:

The lead appears to be a more objective representation of the topic. You stated that this article has a lot of problems and it look as though you have succeed in fashioning the lead to reflect your intent. The stated intent is to update the page and by all measure you are well on your way to accomplishing your goal. You clearly identified the need for updating " stating a lot has happened since then" in reference to the content of the lead. As far as content until you complete the draft is is hard to tell what is missing being that this is a organization effort. It appears the lead could use a list of the subheadings found in the article body (as you stated is your goal).

CONTENT: The content is robust. You said there is a lot of cut and paste which tells me you have sided over the information and selected what you believe to be relevant. There are also several notations to take editing action throughout the sandbox draft. I appears you have a good idea of what needs editing and citing. The sections are clearly defined with added descriptors for clarity (a nice touch).

TONE and BALANCE: This would be difficult to comment on being that I don't know what is going to be changed. Yet you specifically reference the tone of the original article so I am confident this will be addressed.

SOURCES and REFERENCES: The sandbox draft is without citation. I can see you have added several references to the bibliography. The intent is to organize and restructure the article. The references you selected are no doubt in furtherance of this goal. I do notice ether are several clarifying links. Do to the complex nature of your article I like this feature.

ORGANIZATION: The organization of the draft is impeccable. You have provided distant sub-headings and clearly defined paragraphs to separate topics within those headings. You have spots indicated with the type of edit needed which is helpful to see what will be done.

OVERALL IMPRESSION: From you purposed change section is sounds like you have a good idea of what you will accomplish. I think the inclusion of citation is a task that need attention. The organization of the draft is well done, The separation in bullet point style is a nice touch. Your goal are specific which helps to prevent being overwhelmed.

Good work so far, I look forward to reading the completed article.