User:Stevenn117/America's Islamic Heritage Museum/ArtT38k Peer Review

General info
Stevenn117
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Stevenn117/America's Islamic Heritage Museum - Wikipedia :
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):America's Islamic Heritage Museum - Wikipedia

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.)

My peer has revised the previous lead and has added a good amount of information to it. The introductory sentence is good and describes the topic that is going to be discussed. The lead section does briefly go over the topics of the body paragraphs. Overall, the lead is concise. The content added is relevant to the topic of the article. If there are grammatical errors, I didn't notice. The content is up to date. I do not think there is information that should not be there. They did, however, add the title of another lead section but they have either not added information yet or they accidentally put it there. The topic addresses a population that is often underrepresented in the United States. Overall, the content is neutral and does not try to guide the reader to any particular belief. The information added is backed by references. The content aligns with what was written in the sources. The sources are relatively current. There are likely better sources available that aren't news sources. The links do work. The content was well written and concise. It stays on topic and gives good information. It is well organized with sections that could use more emphasis. My peer added information under an image which was beneficial. The added content is beneficial to the overall article. I think the citations could be looked over again because they seem to have some info that either doesn't need to be there or needs to be added.