User:Rai6827/Sanduk Ruit/Kai Mitko-Perkins Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rai6827


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rai6827/Sanduk_Ruit?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sanduk Ruit

Evaluate the drafted changes
There are no major changes made to the lead. The original article would greatly benefit from improvements to the lead in length and information. There are sentences that need to be added to lead into other sections.

In the article some changes are present from the user. The body paragraph shown was not present in the original draft and is now added as a part of the current article. The content was necessary and what is written in this draft greatly improves the article. However, while there are sources in the final draft, there is no bibliography or reference in the sandbox draft. they are present in the final draft, however, there are some areas where there is no citation. There are only two sources added to the final article both of which are valid sources coming from a reliable direct source being the organization Saduk Ruit helped found. These sources are valid for the information retrieved. There are aspects of content that could be improved by moving information to better suited places and ultimately there are not many underdeveloped areas, however, the few that are underdeveloped make the structure and balance flawed.

The tone of the article remains neutral but its formatting remains flawed. Some sections could be made into separate sections and there are some other greatly underdeveloped sections such as the lead and early life. However, this a massive improvement over where this article was before. The article's format is good, there are two pictures put on the right of the article. They are formatted well and are both easy to see and read. The organization could be improved by breaking apart greater sections into subsections and adding more information to underdeveloped areas, however, as it is now it is still easy to read and comprehend.

Overall the edits made to the new article as seen in the sandbox greatly improve the final article. However, there should be more information in shorter one-two sentence sections. The formatting and images help the article and fit in the areas they are. The article is improved greatly from the information given especially in central sections and newer sections. More edits should be done to make the lead better to give a more clear idea as to who he is within the first two sentences.