User:Ccallihan/Museum of Edinburgh/J1013r18 Peer Review

General info
User: Ccallihan
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Ccallihan/Museum of Edinburgh
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Museum of Edinburgh

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.)

What does the article do well?

Lead: It certainly tells me what and where it is. It outlines examples of what may be found inside which may be helpful for those wondering what it may include.

Content: The quick history as to who and why it was originally built is good. When talking about the original resident and their controversy of doing so, you did well in not be biased by simply presenting a source consider why. This was done well to continue to the next point of who took it over.

Tone and Balance: It is neutral and unbiased.

Sources and References: There are several sources for the content added to the article.

Organization: The organization is good. The content added was simple and straightforward so there was not much need for complex organization.

Images and Media:

Lead: Not added

Content: Not added

Tone and Balance: Not added

Sources and References: Not added

Organization: Not added

Possible Changes:

Content: I am unsure if the information about its appearance on Outlander is significant. If it is kept, I think its location within the article could be changed. It feels a sudden and random compared to the rest of the content.

Organization: In the published article, there is no separation of lead and body, so adding that distinction would be nice.

Possible Improvements:

Content: The history is interesting. I think adding some information on the architectural style would be interesting to see, especially about the expansion done by Robert Mylne (architect) compared to the original building.

Other Applications:

I likes the fact that some items that could be found in exhibits were listed. I think in my article, it would have been interesting to incorporate information about additional items pertinent to the location rather than focusing on a certain aspect of the architecture.