User:Gwa19/Fata Morgana Land/Mahna Mahna Muppet Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gwa19


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Gwa19/Fata Morgana Land - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Fata Morgana Land - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
The Lead is concise and clearly conveys the topic. The lead does not mention the article's major sections, so I think that is something you could add or make clearer if you did mention them. The wording of your edit to the lead flows better than the original.

I am little confused as to what was changed in the body of the article.

The article is neutral and does not seem to be making any sort of argument.

the link to the PDF in ref 1 does not work

something is wrong with source 7

the same source is on your draft twice

all the sources are the same as the original article was there any new sources found?

the sources are diverse in both author and date with some newer sources included

Responses
Lee Laiben: About the lead section, I see what you mean about the lead section not mentioning the article's major sections. However, I think the goal of the lead section is to explain in basic terms the subject of the article, not to serve as an outline of the article as a whole. For now, we're not going to add any references to the article body into the lead section. Thank you for your review!

Regan Swain: We are aware that sources 7 and 1 are broken, they were originally in the article when we got it. We are currently looking for a sources to replace these with before totally taking them out of the article so we do not forget. We do have several new sources found, and we are looking for more still. We have a couple new sources in our bibliography we have just not transferred over to the sandbox draft yet.