User:UaPro/Sultan Han/Odambrosia21 Peer Review

General info
UaPro/Sultan Han
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:UaPro/Sultan Han
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sultan Han

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 is a great overview of the article. There is just enough information needed. There is new information that isn't in the original article. Although, there are a few sentences that seem very similar to the original article.

Content
The content added to this draft is very relevant to the topic. The history section seems to be almost identical to the original article word for word. The description section is very detailed and gives a lot of information about the setup and the features. All of the information given is relevant and is very important to this article.

Tone and Balance
Reading through this draft, nothing stuck out to me as being biased. All of the information is very neutral and valid. I did not feel that I was being pushed towards one side while reading this.

Sources and References
There are 4 sources that are listed at the bottom of the draft, but throughout the draft, I didn't see any references given after a sentence. I'm not sure which sentences are coming from the sources. I looked at the sources and they are current and valid sources. Although, when I clicked on the sources, they weren't linked so I had to manually go to the source itself. Each source comes from a different author/writer.

Organization
The content was structured very well. There isn't information randomly placed in the draft, everything is categorized and in the right spots.

Images and Media
No picture or media.