User:Cswed/Cape Cod (house)/Justinbrock36 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? cswed
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cape_Cod_(house)&oldid=929120169

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not that I can tell, although my peer simply added to existing sections, so there may have not been a need to do so.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? From my perspective, yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, but there could be more reference to the topics discussed.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Nope! The Lead does not present information not discussed.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It looked concise and informative.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes! The content related to the previous information and provided more insight.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The sources used seemed recent, and there were no discrepancies from my reading.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Everything added seems to belong to the article. Well done there!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? There are a few areas where my peer did not remain neutral providing opinions and claims not backed by evidence.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? My peer calls Royal Barry Wills "the most successful marketer" with no citation leading me to believe it is my peer's own opinion.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? Not in particular. Simply put, there are opinions that should have not been discussed without citation.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. But the Cape Cod House is discussed with obvious fascination and awe rather than the expression of fact.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It is definitely easy to read, but not entirely concise when it comes to relaying information.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Initially reading the article, I couldn't find any! Good job!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes! It is well broken-up and laid-out.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media: N/A


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
'''If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. : N/A'''


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It does feel more complete! I had to go looking for my peer's updates because they were removed unfortunately.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The new information adds a better depiction of the layout of the house as well as the 20th century adaptations and how the style of the Cape Cod House exploded into many other buildings.
 * How can the content added be improved? As mentioned above, the information could be more concise and more neutral. There are opinions represented and "filler" remarks included. Without those, it would be a great addition!