User:Sbuckendorf/Ames Monument/Cmt77 Peer Review

The introductory paragraph gives a perfect overview of information, it's not too brief or lengthy. The flow of information throughout the entire article feels smooth and thorough.

The second paragraph is phrased a little confusingly, it could be a bit more concise. There are also a few spelling and grammatical errors throughout.

Ultimately this article is clear and provides well rounded information. It was well written and enjoyable to read. Background and surrounding information about Sherman and the railroad were both helpful to the monument itself as well as interesting. The resources seem reputable and thorough.

The use of in text citation links was helpful. I wish I would have known how to do that in my own article.

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.)