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

General info
Madeleine.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)
 * N/A

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead is informative, but contains a lot of info that would be better suited for other sections, such as history (building renovations - also be more specific about those, hard to tell if they're newsworthy). The citations are all useful and appropriate. Including the specific name of the Post-Standard story probably isn't necessary, since you cite it at the end of the paragraph anyway. Using the special characters of Skä•noñh is really great, although I can only imagine how much copying and pasting that required.

All the info is relevant, but it feels a bit scattered and in need of more organization. Some of the content in the museum section is worded a bit more like an advertisement to visit the museum than an objective overview of what they are, although I understand it's tough to balance that while still having to include basic facts. I think just listing off the names and general locations of the museums, rather than including admissions prices, hours, and direct addresses, could help this avoid sounding like an advertisement.

The sources are all informative and appropriately used. However, you should probably avoid citing info directly from the OHA website if possible. There seem to be plenty of sources out there that will tell you more or less the same thing without you having to cite directly from the organization you're covering, so I think that would look better to the editors that are looking over it for notability. Also, citations like the one at the end of the History section don't need quotes around them, since you immediately link to the place where you got it from (maybe switch the wording to something like "closed down" if you want to avoid plagiarism).

Overall, I think the article is very strong and is a great backbone of info. Just a little bit of organization - tidying up the lead a bit, perhaps making a "media coverage" section if you feel like the Post-Standard article deserves a spotlight - and some more independent sourcing can turn it into a really valuable piece of information.