User:Littlee0804/Cold War/LeenOnMe Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Littlee0804


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Littlee0804/Cold War


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)

Your article had provided ample information on your topic with well organized and well structured paragraphs. The lead sentence was to the point and concise. Each section's length is similar to the other, you have written with pretty balanced coverage. Also, I do like your use of sub headings and in-text Wikipedia links, that being said it is a better rule of thumb to have the in-text Wikipedia links follow the capitalization that makes more sense for writing piece rather than the capitalization seen within the link. In particular, in your article thyroid cancer is capitalized as "Thyroid cancer" which in the context of the sentence should be written as "thyroid cancer" instead. Other than that, every other link had been formatted very well.

On another note, it is important to remember that Wikipedia articles most often follow the format of footnote citations, in this regard footnote marker are to be placed after punctuation. It is easy to make this slip as we most often use APA citation in the Environment, Resources and Susceptibility program but the footnote makers should be placed after periods and commas like this; "The red cat enters the hat.[1]", rather than "The red cat enters the hat [1]." as seen in your article. Overall, though, you have done a fine job in being diligent in adding citation every sentence where it was fit to do so.

The writing of the article was very neutral and has done an exceedingly good job in sticking to the facts.