User:Shilohf/Randyland/Kwowd-music Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User: Shilohf


 * Link to draft you're reviewing.
 * Randyland.
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Randyland.

Evaluate the drafted changes
The changes made to the article made some good improvements. In the introduction section, helping the reader better understand the art form that Randyland showcases was a good addition. The hyperlink leading to more information about found objects was a creative way to inform the reader. The paraphrasing changes made to the article were good at helping the information be more digestible, but the describing words taken out hurts the article more than it helps. In the original sentence, "colorful oddities" was used as a description of the items, and it should stay. Finally, removing invalid and unused sources was a great idea. It helps the article be more informative along with keeping it credible. Keeping the sources relevant and up to date is good practice for a great article. In conclusion, the paraphrasing throughout the article could hurt more than help. The introductory section was reinforced by the additions made and clearing out unused and invalid sources strengthened the article as well.