User:Mpmill/Misogyny in ice hockey/Sflower07 Peer Review

General info
(provide username) MPMILL
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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 the lead was very well done, it was concise and set up the rest of the article very well. The lead explained what exactly you were hoping to discuss in a clear manner.

content:

I would say that the content was relevant to the aricle as well as up to date.

tone:

I would say it definitely had a less objective tone and felt more like an opinion piece. I think maybe working a little bit on formality. This could include the sentence length because some felt a little long, almost like a ramble.

sources:

I think that the sourcing, like that in the lead, are confusing due to them being almost stacked on eachother. At some points it is harder to attribute which source gave what information.

organization:

I think that so far it is organized well, the information is relevant to eachother. However, the clarity could be worked on. At some points it was fairly hard to understand/keep attention.

images and media:

In both the sandbox and the original article there are no images. That could be an area in which you could contribute.

overall impressions:

I think you have done a good job in editing so far. I notice that you have done a lot to trim the article down and make more concise but I believe that at some points it still needs a little work. Overall very good job.