User:Tbeaisasn579779257/Ivan Paskevich/DancingDoggo14 Peer Review


 * The formatting is good and I like how it is chronological.
 * I don't have too much to say in regards to the content since there is limited information. Same goes for references.
 * Syntax errors riddled throughout the article, I would recommend you read it aloud.
 * Weird wording: "he attained...", "he won the promotion..." "on 9 June"
 * these are just a few examples of minor slip ups that can/need to be rephrased.


 * I like the format of the article, maybe you can add more within the grid to give you more of a complete feel.
 * Paskevich family in the Early Life section is in RED, idk if that is on purpose.
 * All in all, I think this is very good in terms of structure. I don't have much more to say and you're probably in the lab working on gathering more info, content, etc.
 * The references section needs more sources.
 * I would recommend after more content is added that you also implement more footnotes within the whole article section. I don't know whether the information is general knowledge but it is most likely supposed to be cited especially after you list a number of facts.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


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