User:Such0051/Iron Springs Bog SNA/Sima0063 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Such0051, Ianccoff


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Such0051/Iron_Springs_Bog_SNA?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

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.)

Lead

The Lead has a very nice first sentence to describe the article. The lead is concise and contains all of the information that pertains to the article. The sources are all properly cited and belong where they are.

Content

The content added connects to the original article, and provides a gain of information on the science and natural area. This isn't described in the original article, but is definitely something to add with it being a important piece of research.

Tone and Balance

The tone of the article is passive and is unbiased. The facts of the article are stated clearly and are not overreaching. The content is described in a way that is easy to understand and described the facts of the page.

Sources and References

The sources used are all primary sources that are reliable to cite. The sources are relevant to the topic and provide information that is current. The citations are in proper order, and the links to the sites are working.

Organization

The content added is well written and doesn't contain any errors. The writing is concise and provides the facts of the article.

Images and Media

The one image added does not load in so it might need to be tweaked

Overall Impressions

The addition is a necessary part of the original article and is well written. The sources are useful and provide references to connect to the content.