User:ResearchMethods88/Chuck Stone/Lf20042024 Peer Review

Everything in the article is relevant to the topic. I wish there was more information in the awards section.

The article feels neutral and written in a neutral tone. I do not think there are any claims. Because the article is written in a neutral tone, I don't think there are any under/overrepresented claims.

Not all of the links work. One citation, (14) has a page not found destination.

I do not know enough about Chuck Stone to say if any information is incorrect/if the information is relevant/up to date. But it seems like most if not all facts are supported by the appropriate and reliable references.

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.)