User:Ohebert19/Meteorology (Aristotle)/Jack Oppen Peer Review


 * In your article draft you don't have a lead, I'm guessing you are going to do that last after you collect all the information you will write about which is a smart idea
 * With the topic being broken into 4 books, it makes sense to discuss each one individually
 * The book one section in your draft appears larger than the rest but you did just list the table of contents for each book so I am assuming it just has more content than the rest. I think that means if the section you write in part one is longer that doesn't mean the article is "unbalanced" as we have been warned about.
 * The article only has a header for the 4th book and I see you made a note of that in your draft if you have more add that is, of course, great but I think more focus should go to adding books 1-3 first because there seems to be a good amount their that you can put it on the back burner until the first 3 are finished to an extent to which you are happy
 * Overall the idea I get from your draft is to lay out the framework of the books (You listed the table of contents for each book) and then elaborate on each chapter, that seems like an efficient way to get things done and it adds a lot of much-needed information to your article. Once you are done drafting those sections I'm guessing you'll start your lead which will include the new information you added.

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
(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.)