User:Sfoster33/Forensic Glass Analysis/Enatti0108 Peer Review

General info
Sfoster33
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sfoster33/Forensic_Glass_Analysis?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Forensic glass analysis

Evaluate the drafted changes
There have been no changes to the lead however, I feel it does cover all the necessary information required for the reader to get an understanding of the topic and what is going to be discussed in the main section of the article. A section of the history of glass analysis was added the the main section of the article and this is not mentioned in the lead, therefore, I feel a small mention of something involving the history could be mentioned so the reader assumes there will be more about it later on in the article.

All the content in the article is very relevant to the topic and is also fairly up to date. I do not feel there was any content missing and it all held much value in supporting the topic. I also feel there was the right amount of content in each of the subtopics, making it easy to understand and knowledgable at the same time.

The tone and balance in this article was great and it was done in a neutral and non bias way. All points where properly presented with more information on the larger sub topics and less information on the smaller sub topics. this article does not attempt the persuade the reader to feel a certain way.

As for sources I feel the editor could have possibly added some more sources where there are some missing such as in the lead or in the section of glass fracture, and direction force. As for the History of forensic glass analysis there was a great amount of sources and these showed a great representation of the sources available on the topic. All links in this article seemed to work however, I feel the use of wiki links could have taken the article to the next level.

This article was very well organized and all information was in the section it belonged. As for images and media I feel more images could have been added to take the article to the next level!

Over all, well done!