User:Patriotsfan012/Car bomb/1MightBeRight Peer Review

Lead: The lead has been updated by my peer and was done effectively, adding important details, which was identifying the topic with different names as to not confuse the reader. The introductory sentence briefly and clearly states and describes the topic. The lead seems to drag on just a tad though. The information in the third/largest paragraph in the lead section can be broken down to a more basic and briefer summary, and the details within it can go elsewhere. For instance, the example of the Oklahoma City Bombing can put in the "History" section. There is more that can be removed though. Otherwise the section is well done.

Content: The content is relevant to the topic. I think the strongest part of the editor's contribution to the article is the detail put into it. The editor helped add information to the history of the topic.

Tone and Balance: I think this something the article and editor were doing a good job of. The information before and the information added did not appear to take any position on the topic nor did it attempt to convince the reader to do so.

Sources and References: Most of the references are good sources, but one of them was an excerpt from a book that does not appear to be clear on whether it is a reliable source of information. It was published by the University of California Press, but I do not believe it is a true scholarly source. It wasn't a research article or a study peer-reviewed by professionals in the field, and because it's a book written by a single author with no sources or references in the excerpt, we don't know whether it is reliable.

Organization: The sections of the article could be rearranged. For instance, I believe the "Countermeasures" section may make more sense to come after the "usage" sections. The added content could be written a bit better. As an example, it was written "takes a good deal of time and also it takes a lot of skill." I think the sentence would be improved by taking out "also it".

Images and Media: N/A

Overall Impressions: While most of the sources seemed reliable, I think it's worth the editor's time to try to find another scholarly source to back up the information added. The editor added a bit of information at the very end of the last lead section paragraph about the effects of car bombs on people mentally rather than just the physical damage. I think the editor is onto something very good and could make that its very own section. I believe it would benefit the article greatly!

General info
(provide username)
 * 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.)