User:Marshlashl/Simplified Technical English/Cemcgee492 Peer Review

General info
Marshlashl
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Marshlashl/Simplified Technical English
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Simplified Technical English:

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: I thought you did a great job at updating the lead. Compared to the lead currently in the article, I think yours is much more clear and gives me a greater understanding of what Simplified Technical English is. One thing I would suggest is including sources. I see at the bottom of the page that you have a list of references with some saying "to be added", so I would recommend linking those sources in the sandbox to make it easier to transfer to your article later on. Another thing I would consider adding is defining STC as I'm a bit confused on what that's referencing.

Body:

Compared to the original article, I think you made the history section much more understandable. I also think you provided a neutral tone throughout. I also thought you did a great job updating the Benefits section to make it more specific, although I'm a bit confused if all of these benefits are coming from the same source since only one bullet point has a reference. One thing I would make sure to add is making sure each section is made into a header rather than bolded so it's clearly identifiable which subsections fall under an overall heading. I would add sources to the Aerospace and defense standard section because I'm confused on where the information about today's success is coming from. I see on the original article they linked a source but I'm not seeing it linked in this section, so I'm wondering if it's the same source?

Since the sources aren't linked, I can't really check them for reliability but based on the titles and where they're coming from, it appears reliable.

Overall, I think you included good structural edits that provided much more clarity for me as someone who has never heard of this compared to the original article. To me, the article feels mostly complete and I have a broader understanding of the subject.