User:HIST121-Augie-student/Downwinders/23omoell04 Peer Review

General info
Cherubj
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Downwinders

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.)

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

There are places in the lead where there seems to be too many details while there are other places where there are not enough. It seems to touch on most of the subjects, but the balance of the lead could be improved.

Are there viewpoints that are overly represented or underrepresented?

The information added should fit in to a certain place in the main article. Right now the added information doesn't have a place and is not representing a specific topic.

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

There are almost no sources backing up the content added. Maybe one or two at the most but each added section needs many more.

'''Check a few links. Do they work?'''

The first link in the article body does not go to a source, it just goes to the ProQuest main page. This should be fixed, otherwise it is not an acceptable source.

Is the content added well organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect major points of the article?

There is a title for the Lead section, but no information is present. The only other section provided is the Article body section, but it is not broken down my topics.