User:Kateconnolly02/Washington Square, Syracuse/Madeleine.olive Peer Review

General info
Kateconnolly02
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Kateconnolly02/Washington Square, Syracuse
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Washington Square, Syracuse

Lead
I think that the lead is concise and provides a good description of Washington Square, but it does not go into detail of the different sections that are covered in the article.

Content
I think that the content of the article is very strong. I like the variety of different topics covered in the different sections and feel that they are all very relevant to the topic.

Tone and Balance
There are no opinions or biases that I noticed. All of the content seems to be based in data and is really solid and reliable.

Sources and References
The sources are good and have working links, but there are very few. I think that adding a few more could really strengthen the article and add more reliability to the whole page.

Organization
The content is very well-organized and I enjoyed reading it. I did notice that there seemed to be a spelling of "Washing" instead of "Washington" a few times, but other than that the grammar is good. I think that the sections are well-ordered.

Overall impressions
I think that the information included in the article is very strong. My main suggestion would be to look for some more sources and go back to check the potential spelling errors.