User:WalkingAsGiants/The Small-tooth Dog/LermonySnickers Peer Review

General info
WalkingAsGiants
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Sandbox draft
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * The small tooth dog:

Evaluate the drafted changes
First impression upon scrolling through is that the sandbox draft looks much more like a Wikipedia article than the actual article does, so great work there.

The lead section is concise, but could use some copy editing on the introductory sentence to break it up a bit. The second half of the introductory sentence includes information that doesn't come up elsewhere in the article. A description of the article's major sections could be added.

Content looks good, a lot of stuff has been added to flesh the article out. There's only one main section and subsections left to fill in.

The tone could be a smidge more neutral. This draft reads more like an analysis paper where you get a hint of the writer coming through than an encyclopedia article. The commentary section feels a bit long, especially when compared to the history of the text section.

Sources haven't been added to the sandbox draft yet, so there's no way to tell what information came from which source on your bibliography page. I also see that you've only collected 3 sources so far and you'll need a lot more than that to keep the amount of content you have balanced.

The content is well organized and easy to follow. Main sections are further broken down into sub sections to make the article's structure easier to follow.

The image and infobox look great. I see that a second image later on in the article got removed. Best of luck with that, I still don't have images worked out. But the overall vibes and layout look fantastic.