I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it become a featured article after working on it for a while. I'm in particular having trouble with ideas on what to put in the lede to make it longer but without coming off as too repetitive. The lede was the main criticism in the comments for its Good Article application. Any other thoughts are of course welcome too :). Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be glad to take a look at this one over the next several days. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is already very good and doesn't need much. One thing I'd suggest is saying "Armstrong" more instead of having so many sentences start with "she". IT just breaks up the monotony a bit.
I don't think the lede is repetitive. It's kind of dry, but that's more a problem of subject-matter than of your writing. Trust me, I write a lot of dry stuff--it's hard to spice it up while still maintaining an encyclopedic tone.
I have little to add, this is a well-written piece that I think is nearly ready for FAC. I'll make a second pass at it this weekend, but for now I think the pronoun issue is your biggest concern. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Coemgenus: Great thank you so much! I'll work on some of the shes. Umimmak (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Umimmak: After the second pass at this, I think you're ready to go. I would definitely support this article at FAC. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Coemgenus: Thanks! I'll go "close" this peer review since that seems to be the next step in the process Umimmak (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
