User:Swimcoach2!/Red Mountain Park/Gfs0010 Peer Review

General info
(provide username) Swimcoach2!
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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 is very detailed and strong. Content added is relevant but not fully up-to-date. Information stops at 2015 - what has happened since then? Anything? Content is neutral and not biased in any way I found. It gives the purpose of Red Mountain Park and attractions. All sources and references are supported and up-to-date as well. The writing is clear and easy to read with no spelling or grammatical errors found. There are no added images, which would be a good touch.