User:Epicthem8/Giyōfū/Wgroneman 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? Epicthem8
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Giyōfū architecture

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The articles only section is a History section, which is referenced in the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It does include information not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is long and could be separated and moved to sections. The second two paragraphs would be better served in their own section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? I don't know what content was added, but all content on the page is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It seems to be.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't know enough about the topic to point out if anything is missing, but it seems like all the info belongs.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, but there are a lot of claims that are unsourced.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Doesn't seem to be.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, there are a lot of facts that are not backed by references. It seems like references were added to the article, but it looks like the author might have forgotten to cite the sources with the facts.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? They seem to be.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There is one sentence in the lead section that is pretty long and could be separated into shorter sentences to make it easier to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? In the history section it switches from past tense to present tense, it's a little confusing.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There could be more sections, it seems like things are squished into the Lead section.

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?

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


 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?