Hi @grlucas,
I believe I have completed my individual Wikipedia project, and I have received great feedback from my peer reviewer. Do you mind taking a look at it as well?
Thank you!
It’s looking good. A coupe of things:
- Fix the references. I’m not sure what’s going on there. What are all those URLs about? Why do you have a References and a Footnotes section?
- You rely on a single reference for much of the article. Can you find other sources?
- No external links should be in the body of the article. They go either in references or in links, but you should not have too many of the latter.
These are the main things I notice in need of attention. Keep going! 
Thank you for your feedback. I think at this point I have confused myself with which statement goes with which source.
- I meant to get rid of the URLs, I had kept them at the bottom in case I lost the links I was working with.
- I have found a couple other sources, but a lot of the information did mainly come from one source. Is that ok?
- Are there still external links in the body of the paragraph?
I am getting a bit frustrated with the footnotes/references. I am not sure if I am doing something wrong there. 
That is why I use shortened footnotes. Maybe move the references to {{sfn}} and you can consolidate them.
The timeline link is external.
1 Like
Hi @grlucas,
Ok, I believe I have fixed everything now, if you have a chance to take another look. Thank you for your help with everything.
The shortened footnotes will not work unless you use citation templates, like we did in the remediation project. Sources without authors need to be expressly told what the shortened footnote will be, using, for example |ref={{SfnRef|Pandora|1925}}