User:Matinhomafar/OpenGov/Emmettaking Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Matinhomafar


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Matinhomafar/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * OpenGov

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead has not been changed but the history goes into greater depth. Before, the history of acquisitions but the new draft shows statistics and origins. The added context helps me identify the relevance of the acquisitions though I do not think they should be omitted. Integrating your draft with the original would really enhance the overall knowledge of this article. Your sources and information seem to be up to date and this is not related to equity gaps. Your content is very neutral with no bias and no persuasive language. You bring many new and more up to date sources to this article thus enhancing its information. The sources seem quality except 2 and 4 come from a source I am unfamiliar with. Perhaps looking for other sources from more notable websites would make this topic more relevant. From the links I clicked on, they all seem to work. Your new content is very well written and adds much needed specifics about the topic. The opening line to the new section "customers" seems incorrect. I do not believe they serve exactly "1,000" entities and when I clicked on the source, I was directed to a website that did not seem relevant nor did it contain information regarding the number of customers. So yes, the links work but the sources need to be checked over.A picture of current board members may be a relevant image to add. Overall, you are off to a great start and just need to double check sources.