User:Epicthem8/Giyōfū/Mdcarroll99 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? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

I am reviewing the work of Epicthem8.

The draft article in question is Giyōfū architecture.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead has been updated to reflect the additional content present within the article.

The lead provides a clear and concise introductory sentence, though the sentence is essentially copied from the third source referenced by the article.

The lead includes references to the additional content added, though it worth noting that only one section has been added.

The lead is longer than the rest of the article, and as such includes several elements not present in the body of the article.

The lead is an appropriate length and is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant to the subject, though the article as a whole could have benefited from additional content.

The citations provided to back up the content added is current, though I could not find dates on two of the articles provided.

Primarily the content within the article is relevant, but overall the article would greatly benefit from an expanded selection of content.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added to article propagates no particular opinion and as such remains neutral.

No content added appears biased towards any particular position.

The viewpoints present in the article primarily represent a single view of why the style faded out. Perhaps other sources or historical references could provide a more balanced view.

The content does not particularly attempt to persuade the reader in any way.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
The content added is backed up by reliable sources.

The sources seem to be well written, thorough, and reasonably balanced.

The sources are for the most part current, though I had difficulty finding dates on two of the articles provided.

The links to all of the sources work well.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content added is well written, but it is worth noting that much of the content added seems to be heavily paraphrased or nearly copied from the articles sources, which is a violation of Wikipedia's plagiarism policies and should be evaluated further.

The content has no obvious grammatical or spelling errors.

The content is not particularly well organized, as everything is thrown together into a single small section labeled history. Some additional sections related to the characteristics, meaning, proponents, or other information related to the article topic would immensely improve the article.

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


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The image is an effective picture that adds to the article.

The image has an appropriate caption relevant to the subject.

The image does not violate copyright regulations.

The image is placed in a logical and appropriate position.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content added has improved the article, but seems to have been very heavily paraphrased from the sources provided as references. Perhaps some rewriting and the addition of extra content would greatly improve the article.

The content added is clear, well written, and is thoroughly relevant to the subject.

The content added needs to be re-written to comply with Wikipedia's policies and avoid plagiarism.