User:Jmk12/Copy editing/Mandymelville Peer Review

General info
Jmk12
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Jmk12/Copy editing/Bibliography:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copy_editing&diff=prev&oldid=1178476720
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Copy editing

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 person I am reviewing did not edit the lead of the article.

Content
The content added is very relevant to the topic. The student expanded upon a sub-topic that was being explained by providing an example and linking a source to back this information.

Tone and Balance
The student provided the information with a neutral tone. They are simply stating the fact that some copy editors delve into deeper research to provide themselves with a more thorough background to aid their careers. There are no statements about whether this choice is good or bad, or why copy editors should make this choice.

Sources and References
The source links to a peer-reviewed article. Written in 2013, the source does happen to be 10 years old, so I think it could be beneficial to find a more recent source. However, the source itself looks reliable.

Organization
The content is well-written. Each sentence begins with an appropriate transition, which appropriately connects it to the previous sentences that were already written in the article. These transitions, like "additionally" and "for instance" do a solid job with helping the article flow smoothly.

Images and Media
The person I am reviewing did not insert an image into the article.