User:NJSanta/Hot air balloon/Jachar520 Peer Review

General info
NJSanta
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:NJSanta/Hot air balloon
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Hot air balloon

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.)

After looking over both the sandbox draft and the original article, I think it was a great choice to go in depth into the different types of hot air balloons. That is something that the article as it exists does not do. I also think it is a good idea to add the information about the usage of hydrogen, because that is also something that the article does not go incredibly in depth with. But I do not feel as though the information fits well in its current spot, or the way that the information is presented/ led into could be better. As it is right now, the sentence about the usage of hydrogen sticks out and is not clearly explained how it is related to the other content. If that was how the balloons were first used and lifted, then that information should go along with it. In the original article, hydrogen is only referenced two separate times, both discussing how it was quickly abandoned in most hot air balloons due to the fire hazard issue, or accidents that happened because of hydrogen ignition. A better place for this information might be along with the Rozier balloon section, because that is where it is discussed in the article, and explained how it is still used safely today. Looking through the content guiding questions, I believe that the information added is up to date, relevant to the topic, as well as covers a content gap in the original article. The question I had an issue with is the "content is missing or does not belong." I don't believe the hydrogen information does not belong, I just believe it could be placed in a better section. Then to the tone and balance section. I believe that the work in the sandbox draft has a completely neutral tone, and there is no sections or points in the content that try to persuade the reader in any way. I really enjoy how the content in the sandbox references topics that are already in the original article, such as the shape and construction of hot air balloons, but then expands upon them and shows when and how they were used and in what settings.