User:Sam ERTH/Pulpwood/Millie Deroy Peer Review

General info
Sam ERTH
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Editing User:Sam ERTH/Pulpwood - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Pulpwood - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Starting with the lead, I think you did a great job of adding lots of information, as the lead currently in the article is only one sentence. I think the added information is useful and adds to the topic of what we are talking about during the article. The lead does include an introductory sentence and mentions the major sections of the article. The lead may a bit a little bit too detailed, perhaps summarizing it a little more and adding the detailed information further into the article?

For the content, I can see that most of the modifications were made in the lead and not much in the content, thus I have to say everything seems relevant to the topic. The sources seem up to date, with a few exceptions being from 1993 and 1998, but the information still seems accurate in this context. The only section that seems to be missing when compared to the created article is the "Pulpwoods" section just before the chemical composition table. The topic does not address historically underrepresented populations.

Your content added was neutral and filled with facts. The content that you have added seems to be up to date with the references added at the bottom being from 2020 and 2003. No claims seem to be heavily biased and no viewpoints are over or underrepresented. The content added is very well-balanced and does not attempt persuasion.

Some content seems to still have missing citations. For example the logging section. Maybe try PULPWOOD LOGGING (cif-ifc.org). Not sure if it could be helpful, but it leads to a PDF about pulpwood logging. The content does reflect what the cited sources say for those that are cited. The sources are mainly all current with a few exceptions of some outdated sources (20+ years) but the information still seems accurate to this day. All the links work to the cited sources. The sources seem to be written by a diverse group of people, with many being peer-reviewed.

Your article is very organized and easy to follow. It is clear and concise and doesn't have any obvious grammatical errors. It is broken down into sections that reflect the major topic well.

Overall, the additions to the lead heavily improved the article and makes it seem a little more complete. The lead is the biggest strength in this article, but can also perhaps be broken down into smaller summarized sentences and then explained with more detail further into the article. Overall, Great Job!