User:Madeleine.olive/ONONDAGA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION/Annikaholmberg Peer Review

General info
Madeline.olive
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Madeleine.olive/ONONDAGA HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
 * 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.)

Lead - The lead is very straightforward and provides the description of what OHA is from the get. It then goes into some supplementary information which I think is a good structure. The only thing I really have to critique is that the sentence "OHA was first founded amid the Civil War to preserve history at a time it was "washing in and out of recognition," according to a 2013 Syracuse Post-Standard article." is somewhat confusing just in terms of the wording.

Content - I think the content is also organized very well in terms of its breakdown. I think the museums section is organized in a good way, breaking down each of the museums into separate paragraphs. The only grammatical thing I noticed was this sentence; "Until its renewal was shown to the public in a 2011 ribbon cutting ceremony, the building was "bricked up for years."" I think there needs to be 'it' after the word 'renewal'. I didn't notice any bias in the content and find that it is all very informational.

Sources - There is a good balance of different sources. A lot of the content available can be taken directly from the website - but the Wikipedia article helps to streamline that information. It correctly backs up all the information given in the article as well.