User:Wcubias/Frank Kameny/Amandaaaaam Peer Review

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


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Frank Kameny
 * 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:


 * Lead not edited
 * However, the original lead is concise, and I can see why it does not need to be updated

Content:


 * Yes, the article addresses topics that related to historically underrepresented populations or topics

Tone and Balance:


 * Yes, the content added is neutral

Sources and References:


 * Yes, the sources are thorough
 * Yes, the content added summarizes what the sources say accurately

Organization:


 * Yes, the content added is well-written
 * "Does the content added have any spelling or grammatical errors?': Perhaps change "assertations" to assertions in the paragraph that starts with "In late 1961". Also, president, security, perversion, activity, and participating are also accidentally misspelled in this paragraph :)
 * I am unsure if the "Timeline:" is going to be a new heading in the article? If it is not going to be a new heading, it is unclear about what heading this information is being added under? Or, is the "Timeline:" content going under the Lead?

Overall Impressions:

-Amanda Miller
 * Yes, the content added has approved the article
 * If had a choose an area of improvement, it would be what I have written underneath the organization section of the peer review. For example, I am unsure if the content under Early life and Firing, should be under that heading or if it should be under the timeline section. However, I understand that this could just be the way sandbox is organized and when moved to the live page, you will have a good sense of organization. I also listed word choices and accidental misspelling that could be improved in the Organization section of the peer review.
 * The strengths of the content added include being concise, neutral, the content added summarizing what the sources say accurately, and adding relevant information to the topic :)