User:Sfoster33/Forensic Glass Analysis/JessicaWalsh687 Peer Review

General info
(Sfoster33)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Sfoster33/Forensic Glass Analysis
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Forensic glass analysis

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.)

Content
The content that was added to the article by Sfoster33 was/is relevant to the topic of Forensic glass analysis, especially towards the history of the topic. The content that was added was up to date and not outdated and I found it to be irrelevant. I believe that no content was missed and I believe that all the content that was added to the sandbox does belong in this article especially the parts that discuss its history as I believe that the article needed more of it. I don't believe that this article is apart of one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, as its topic is not one that is about historically underrepresented topics.

Tone and balance
I believe that the content that was added to the article is neutral and it shows no negative or positive bias, but a neutral tone all around. I don't think the posts added to the article are either overrepresent or underrepresented, I think the view point is right in between and doesn't favor any position. The content added does not try to persuaded the readers of the article onto any side or skew their view point and thoughts.

Sources and references
The references in both the bibliography and the ones chosen for the content that was added to the article are from reliable secondary sources in my opinion and the content that was taken from the sources can be found in the sources they were said to be from. I believe the sources chosen are pretty thorough and are informative on the topic that was chosen. Written by good authors that have working links and were from good scientific journals/books.

Organization
The content added to the article in my opinion is well written with no visible spelling errors off of the first glance and the content in my opinion is well organized and in order of importance.

Overall impressions
Overall I think the content added to the article was appropriate to the topic chosen and it was a good addition to the article that would help it be better understood especially towards the history of forensic glass analysis, I would have liked to maybe see the addition of some different glass type photos, but overall very well done in my opinion!