User:Josibgrbbn/Reichsbund jüdischer Frontsoldaten/Mhogenauer Peer Review

General info
Josibgrbbn/Reichsbund jüdischer Frontsoldaten
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Josibgrbbn/Reichsbund jüdischer Frontsoldaten
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Reichsbund jüdischer Frontsoldaten

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * It does not seem like you guys have a established lead in. I think that the lead in of the original article if very well done and concise. If the information in the original lead to accurate I would recommend carrying it over or adding something similar to your own draft.
 * The origins paragraph is very well put together. It provides needed context to the topic. Is it supposed to be a sub heading of history or is origins intended to replace the history heading? I think it could be left as origins and just delete the history heading.
 * The activism is section is well written and has good variation in source usage. However I am not sure the second to last sentence fits within the heading.
 * The tone is well balanced throughout the draft and displays a unbiased view.
 * Sources are reliable documents that have been written or created relatively recently. The content is pulled from the sources cited. The links all work however there are two sources without links. There seems to be a good variety of source authors but one author is used twice.
 * The article is well organized and laid out in a logical manner. I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The new image incorporated is fitting for the article. Both captions that exist for the two images provide meaningful context to the images
 * I think that overall the edits presented greatly improved my understanding of the topic. The group did a good job at incorporating all of their new information into the existing text while still maintaining a high level of writing.
 * There is a pretty large section of activism during the third reich that relies heavily on one source. Is it possible to add in a second corroborating source?