User:ChrisBranch1999/Frank Silas Doernbecher House/Captainq25 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

ChrisBranch1999


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChrisBranch1999/Frank_Silas_Doernbecher_House?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Frank Silas Doernbecher House

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.)

Consider these questions:


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

Chris,

Great additions to the stub!

First off there are a couple technical and formatting errors.

You're going to want to remove the "Frank Silas Doernbecher House" section as this will already be the title of the page. You'll also want to remove the "lead" and "article body" titles and change the bolded sub sections to the underlined style that "Lead" is in.

I would suggest discussing the building before you discuss the person behind it. And I would avoid creating a section devoted to the man because this warrants another page potentially. I would try to involve the discussion of the man into the discussion of the building. To address this, I would suggest a section called "History" then a section called "Architecture".

You do cite all of your statements, but I suspect that some of the early statements are supported by multiple sources. It is very important to include multiple references for essential parts of the article.

Overall you provide a great amount of information that is clearly supported by your references! If you reformat this article it will be golden.

- Captainq25 (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)