User:Michigan Historian 11/Central Argentine Railway/Powderskiing1921 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Michigan Historian 11


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Central Argentine Railway (draft)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Central Argentine Railway

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 existing lead in the article seems to work. You could always change it if you feel like you can do better, but it's not necessary. If/when you to add any new information to the article, make sure to update the lead accordingly.

Content/Tone:


 * The new content is very relevant to the topic, and fixes existing errors in the article. The additions present themselves in a neutral tone and do not show bias.

Sources:


 * All new content is backed up by relevant sources. These sources are current, relative to the time period covered in the article, and are all scholarly.

Organization:


 * The draft is well organized so far. The new writing, which I believe is in parenthesis, is well written and contains no grammatical errors.

Images/Media:


 * The existing article contains a good amount of pictures, so additional ones may not be necessary. However, if you find better images or feel like one could be removed, I see no issue in that.

Overall Impressions:


 * All of the new content improves the quality of the article, primarily due to the fact that it corrects errors. What you currently have looks good to me, and I am sure your new sections will be of the same quality. I do not see any major issues, and the addition of your new sections/updated sources should contribute to a more complete article.