User:SeanSwindle/Horse pond/Nathanielbarrett Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Erinefrew and SeanSwindle


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Horse pond


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Horse pond

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.)

Overall this article is very well done. The page is easy to follow as well as read. Likewise, it contains links to other wikipedia articles that make it easy to follow and understand. There are also other sources that were used and are easy to see where they retrieved them as well. There is a photo that is provides additional content as well to help display the concept at hand. One recommendation would be to add where they are commonly found. This would give the reader an even better example and idea of what a horse pond really is. Although, overall the article ticks most of boxes off, as it is really easy to follow, as well is neutral in wording and phrasing. The contents easy guide the user through the page and is easily accessible. As far I explored I found no trace of copyright infringements or plagiarism. Overall, this is a great article and is well done.