User:Paigebodnar/Folk taxonomy/Ra04ghav 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`
- While the content is there, the concluding sentences/conclusions are brief and do not do justice to the content presented above. It could use more detail, but more importantly, more concision and decisiveness so the reader is confident in the information.

- the content written would be more solidified if there were more supporting arguments and a larger amount of content.

- the history of the topic is a very strong base to the topic but more content regarding the relevant article will be more useful.