User:Mnbvcxz1234567/MKUltra/Explorer300 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead is well written and thorough, but still concise. It does a good job of conveying the overarching information of the article so as to give the reader a good idea about what the article is addressing without being overbearing in the amount of details or information. Overall, the lead seems to be a strong and fitting for the article.

Content

The content is relevant to the topic and the sources that have been used appear to be up to date. The content is clearly presented and the information comes across as being well supported by verifiable facts. Because the topic is one something from the past, even older sources present in the article are still likely relevant.

Tone and Balance

The tone and balance of the article seem to be where they should be in providing a neutral and objective perspective on the topic. It is very easy for the reader to make opinions on the topic because of what was being done, but the information itself does not seem to be biased towards influencing a negative opinion of the CIA's actions, as the facts of the situation do a good job of displaying the types of maltreatment that were occurring. The article does a good job of conveying the reasons for which the CIA was taking that actions that it did, but also giving evidence that leads to the conclusion of those actions being morally and ethically questionable. The content does not appear to try to persuade the reader in a particular direction. Again, the facts of the situation are pretty self explanatory.

Sources and References

As stated before, the sources seem to be up to date and have relevant and accurate information for the topic. The information being referred to in the article also appears to accurately convey the information that was presented in the sources. There are a variety of sources present written by many different authors, so it is likely that the sources represent a good and accurate sample of the perspectives relevant to the topic. The sources are also relatively diverse in their type, including both primary and secondary sources. The links to the sources also work. One thing regarding the sources that could use some attention are a few areas of the article where it says "citation needed" or where it says that a particular section is relying too heavily on only a few sources, so it would likely be advisable to add the source citations where they are needed and reference a few more sources where appropriate.

Organization

The organization of the article is good. It is clear and is structured in a way that makes sense and is easy for the reader to follow. The writing is concise and easy to read. I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors that needed correcting either.

Images and Media

The images are relevant to the topic and the information in the particular section. They are a good addition to the article, and they are well-captioned. The only issue that I noticed is that for the images of documents, the writing on the documents is quite small and thus rather difficult to read, but that is not terribly concerning, as the section that the image corresponds to does a good job at explaining the image.

Overall Impressions

The content added is valuable and helps to strengthen the article. My only suggestions would again be to make sure that all the information is being cited appropriately and to add some additional sources to the areas of the article that are relying too heavily on only a few sources. Other than that, the article looks good, reads well, and is very informative. Great job so far!