User:Jinge C/Friends of Chicago River/Chuevos Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jinge C., Pvazq3,


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Pvazq3/sandbox


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jinge%20C/Friends_of_Chicago_River/Chuevos_Peer_Review?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review

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 introductory paragraph is well written with a great explanation of what this is with examples of programs and partnerships. I believe it can be a little more concise in terms of the 3rd reference sentence. In general it provides a well developed and informative first impression on the page

Content: All the content is current and are referenced to up-to-date information. After reading the article it gives me a very present version of the Chicago river and its condition that is all relevant to each other and their history as well.

Tone and Balance: Overall this has a very neutral tone to how it is written. There is no opposing sides or favoring of any side, this is more of an informational and general page that just provides direct and present info that is relevant to what you are looking for. This was written with a normal tone that still gives a positive outlook on Friends of Chicago River.

Sources and References: Generally speaking, this has all the correct and relevant up-to-date information. It was well put together and clearly has a great amount of resources to reference also with not just one general source being used rather multiple articles from a variety of pages.

Overall: This article in its entirety is very direct with what information is being communicated and referenced. There is no grammatical errors to this page and has all the correct parts put together. One thing I would change from this page would be making the introductory section a little more concise while other sections can be explained more in detail.