User:Ccallihan/Museum of Edinburgh/SheffAE23 Peer Review

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

User: Ccallihan on the article Museum of Edinburgh


 * 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.)

Lead:

There is a cohesive lead that explains the topic of the article in the first sentence. The editor added a sentence to the lead regarding the types of exhibits one would see in this museum. The lead is concise, but does not contain information regarding other sections.

Content:

The content added is relevant to the topic and up to date, but I think there should be more information regarding the structural architecture of the building. There are no claims that are heavily biased and this article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance:

The content added is neutral and is not considered heavily biased. The history of the Museum is represented a lot, which I think is really good. The body needed more information on the style of architecture, which is underrepresented. The author does not attempt to persuade the reader in the content added.

Sources and References:

All the new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. All of the citations are from sources with .org or .co. The content does accurately cite what the sources say and all of the sources go into depth about the article topic. The links for the citations work on the article and there are some articles that are also relevant to the topic on google scholar. Overall, the citations used are informative and are very reliable for the articles topic.

Organization:

The content added is very organized for the reader and is very easy to read and understand. I do not see any grammatical errors in this article, but there is no separation to specific topics for organization.

Overall impressions:

The content added has improved the overall quality of the article, but I think some additional statements about the architecture are needed. The strengths of the content added is it is abundant and organized in a great way into the article. The content added could be improved by finding citations on the architecture as well as sectioning certain areas of the article for a more organized look.