User:Grichmon/Carpenter Gothic/Cheesecassidea Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Grichmon


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Doesn't have a draft in the sandbox so I read the published article Carpenter Gothic


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Carpenter Gothic

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.)

Note* I didn't see anything in the writer's sandbox so I can not be sure what they added and what was already there, so I am just going to go ahead and review the entire article.

I think the Lead summary is fine, it might be best to include more information from the actual article such as Outside North America, relocation, etc. I do think it is concise though and basically gives a good quick background of what carpenter gothic is. I think it should be treated more as an abstract and include one sentence of information from each section.

I think the article is organized well, starts with history and characteristics and moves to more specific parts of carpenter gothic. I think there could be a lot more content. Although it is concise which is good, some sections could definitely use more such as "American Gothic" and Steamboat Gothic. I do think this article heavily relies on pictures so there isn't as much description, which is fine, but maybe some further history or background on these more niche strains of the topic, such as the section entitled Outside North America.

This article doesn't look biased at all, it focuses only on the facts about this style. The content doesn't persuade the reader at all.

A lot of the sources either don't have dates or are starting to go out of date. I think it can be hard to find newer sources on this subject considering carpenter gothic architecture is now old itself. I do think the sources are reliable because many of them come from museums, institutes and historians.

Like I said above, the article is well organized and I think it breaks everything down nicely and into very specific categories. The information is very concise and easy to read, and could even be beefed up more to include more in-depth information on some sub-topics.

The gallery of images definitely makes this article and there are many good examples. They are all captioned well and organized in a pleasing way, such as separating churches and houses with this style of architecture into their own sections. Overall, this is well done and organized. My only critique is to beef up the sections even more by finding more specific information and going deeper in research.