User:HMSAudacious/Alpha 66/Kskornyes Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? HMSAudacious
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Alpha 66

Lead
Evaluation:


 * The Lead is very concise and does not do a very good job of introducing the article, as it is more of a floating fact than a true introduction. Does not allude to what will be included in the article at all.

Content
Evaluation:


 * Content added is relevant to the topic and has a wide array of sources that have been published relatively recently. The content is very apropos to the nature of the article and provides quality historical context.

Tone and Balance
Evaluation:


 * Content tone is neutral and factual, focused on updating the history section and offers a good general overview, highlighting key figures, dates all while contextualizing the facts in a way that is easy to read and understand. There is no intention to persuade and no specific line of thinking is overrepresented in the edits.

Sources and References
Evaluation:


 * As I mentioned before, the edits are well cited, and by recent sources, they reflect the topic well and seem to offer valuable information that serves to enrich the article. Most of the links appear to be in working order.

Organization
Evaluation:


 * The added information is organized into concise and chronological paragraphs that are written in a way that makes them easy to comprehend. The grammar is good and the sentence structures appear sound- perhaps a few could use proofreading and some re working- but the overall changes are quite good.

Overall impressions
Evaluation:


 * The edits and further additions to the history section will greatly enhance the article, and it certainly appears more complete, the amount of information in each subject is now a little skewed so perhaps some reorganization of the article and adding information to other underrepresented sections would not be an unwarranted change.