User:PDLemoo/Monopropellant rocket/Atghmb Peer Review

General info
PDLemoo
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:PDLemoo/Monopropellant rocket
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Monopropellant rocket

Evaluate the drafted changes
It terms of sources, the second paragraph in the history section has sufficient citations, but the first and third paragraph contain a lot of specific information but have no in text citations. The second paragraph also does a great job representing multiple sources. The sources used are from trustworthy and reliable government agencies. The sources are mostly up to date however one source is from 1968 but it is appropriate considering it is a history section. The links to the NASA publications work but the book citation appears to have an error in it.

The content added in the history section is very clear and understandable for someone who does not know anything about rocket propellants. I think that some context hydrazine could be added since the history section suddenly just jumps straight into it. It would also be helpful to know why mono-propellant rockets were developed and the flaws of bi-propellant rockets to get more background on the topic. Adding an image could possibly help with this. The content added has a neutral tone and is free from any grammatical errors. Although not all of the sections have content yet there is a set structure for the article that just needs to be filled it.

Overall, this article does an excellent job presenting clear and concise content in a way that any reader could understand. Adding citations to the first and third paragraphs will make the article much more reliable. In addition adding some context and background about hydrazine and why monopropellant rockets needed to be developed would helpful for someone who knows nothing about the topic.