User:Such0051/Iron Springs Bog SNA/Bohne086 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Such0051


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * 


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Iron Springs Bog SNA

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added (flora and fauna). The lead has a concise and clear introductory sentence describing the topic. The lead should include brief descriptions of the new topics added (flora and fauna). The lead includes some information not present in the article such as tourism. The content/sources added and source are up-to-date, current, and relevant to the topic. The source added is relevant, and the link works. There is missing content for flora, fauna, and cycling topics. It is neutral and unbiased. There is a lot of information not backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The content reflects the sources. There could be more sources; it does not accurately represent all available literature on the subject. Notability is something important to keep in mind. The journal articles are a great source for information. It is clear, concise, and easy to read. There are no grammar errors. The content is well-organized and broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic. There could be images added to enhance the understanding of the topic. There are many links to other articles to make it more discoverable. The content added has improved the quality of the article, but it is incomplete. You could add information about the flora, fauna, cycling, research, chemistry, etc. to ensure completeness. The new sections provide a good subject for information about this topic. The article follows patterns of other articles with headings, references, links, lead, body, etc.