User:Kunikmaddox/Dog whistle (politics)/Delacruzjameson02 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kunikmaddox


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kunikmaddox/Dog_whistle_%28politics%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Dog whistle (politics)

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.)

I am reviewing the lead section draft of this article from this user. The lead was updated to include a definition from Merriam Webster dictionary about the term Dog Whistle. It was included by the user to make the paragraph more cohesive and complete. The lead starts off with the definition of Dog Whistle which is the entire subject of the article and they included why Dog Whistle was named that certain way in order to convey the definition further. The lead does not include any descriptions about the main sections in its paragraph. They can could add a few sentences after the description of Dog Whistle that describes the upcoming sections that are covered as a background knowledge for Dog Whistle. The lead is a description about the subject and it doesn't present any ideas that wouldn't be covered in the article. The lead gives a good and clear explanation of what Dog Whistle is and elaborates slightly on it. As stated before what would make it better is just adding descriptions about the other sections in the article.