User:MathStudent24/The Wilderness Society (United States)/Rudrud2121 Peer Review

General info
(MathStudent24 & PsychSoc2027)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing::User:MathStudent24/The Wilderness Society (United States):
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

The Wilderness Society (United States)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Quinn's Peer Review:

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?


 * The lead section does provide a brief overview of The Wilderness Society's mission, activities, and historical context. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the major sections of the article (ex. history, current initiatives, notable associates). I think you guys should consider adding a sentence briefly outlining the structure of the article.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?


 * I think the content appears comprehensive, covering the organization's mission, history, notable figures, current leadership, and further reading.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?


 * I noticed the content seems fairly neutral overall, focusing on factual information about The Wilderness Society, its activities, and notable individuals associated with it. However, you could ensure that language remains neutral and avoid any language that could be interpreted as promoting a specific viewpoint or bias.

Are the sources current?


 * The sources provided in the edit seem relevant and appropriate for supporting the content. However, I think that its important to check the publication dates of the sources to ensure they are up-to-date and reflect current information and perspectives.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?


 * I noticed a few minor grammatical and punctuation errors in the edit. For example, "guildeline" should be "guideline," "ensue" should be "ensure" or "allow," and "prohibiiting" should be "prohibiting." Additionally, some sentences could be structured more clearly for better readability. But overall, not bad.