User:IconRomano/Wilderness Act/BlueJay14127 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

IconRomano


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Current Draft


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Current Article

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: The article has a pretty good lead already; the only reason it would have to be changed would be if you add anything into the body of the article that is important enough to mention in the lead.

Content: All the new content in the draft is very well written. Few things; I would suggest in the sentence "The basics of the program set out in the Wilderness Act are straightforward" change straightforward to as follows. I agree that the criticisms section doesn't need to be included unless you can find more significant criticisms to add on (like at least one or two).

Tone and Balance: All good.

Sources and References: References currently in the draft reference section all are good. I would suggest, instead of using legislative insight, using sources like Cong. Quarterly or NYT (even if it does seem repetitive, for the sake of using primary sources instead of secondary), or finding out how to cite the actual legislation proposed (I don't know how, still trying to figure that out myself).

Organization: Looks like content from the draft will fit into the article well. Under the Provisions draft heading, the section 2 bullet points don't have periods at the end of all of them; but I don't know if this is intentional because they are not full sentences or if they are supposed to be there and were forgotten.

Images and Media: If you could find a map of the US that showed how much land initially became wilderness areas with the passage of the act, that would be cool, but not necessary.

Overall: Lots of good stuff :)