Rayleen's Peer Review 10:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[edit]
The background section of the article appears to be thorough and makes notable claims about OLS. It is a precise, easy to read and creates a suitable start to the article.
Reading the background gave me some applicable ideas for my own article. I enjoy the depth and chronological order of events, which are some traits I can add to my own.
The citations appear to be exact.
The outline seems to nicely flow together and creates a pleasant timeline.
Reading the article so far, I feel the biggest improvement would be to possibly restructure some pieces of the introduction. Making it easier to read and adding a couple sequential milestones, would definitely create a concise introduction. The added milestones would also be a great setup in order to elaborate on them later in the article.
So far the article shows many strengths within its structure, it is very pleasing to see.
