User:Jnelso95/Mather Tower/Ezafft1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Jnelso95
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Mather Tower draft
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Mather Tower article
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Mather Tower article

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

This article includes an updated lead section with information relevant to the topic. The introduction sentence is concise but some of the information here is rather difficult to understand. Specifically, "later Lincoln Tower, as designated on the Michigan–Wacker Historic District roster; now identified primarily by its address," this sentence includes information that might be somewhat confusing and misleading to the average reader. What is the Michigan–Wacker Historic District roster? What does it mean to be identified by its address if the address is different from both other names (Mather/Lincoln Tower)? Also, the lead could use other important information about the background of this topic, such as who designed/built it and a brief description of the articles major sections.

Content:

All content of this article is relevant to the topic and seems to be up to date. Although all content belongs, there could be more information on the buildings architect/engineering team, the purpose of the building, and structural/architectural details other than the use of terracotta-cladding. This article does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance:

The content of this article is written in a neutral tone, and it is balanced so not to overrepresent, underrepresent, or persuade the reader in favor of certain viewpoints/perspectives.

Sources and References:

This article's content is supported by secondary sources. Several of these sources, however, are from online websites, with blog-like formatting, with no clear peer-review process or details regarding the reliability and notability of the author. Although these sources are current, there are several external links that don't work and others that aren't available. This makes it difficult to determine their thoroughness and if the content accurately reflects the information provided by these sources. Further, the sources with working likings are written by single authors and the publisher's credibility is not clearly apparent. After briefly searching the University of Wyoming library database, there does seem to be some better sources available.

Organization:

The majority of the new content added is clear, concise, and easy to read, with the exception of the lead information discussed in the lead section of this evaluation. This article does not seem to have and spelling or grammatical errors and the added content is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic, organized sufficiently. Still, however, subsections might be helpful to further organize the articles content.

Images and Media:

This article does included a new image that is well captioned and relevant to the topic, helping to enhance the readers understanding. Further, the image is visually appealing and adheres to the copyright regulations of Wikipedia.

Overall Impressions:

The overall status of the article is good, but could use further development. Specifically, the lead section could be better written and include more information about the fundamental aspects of the topic. Also, further details regarding the structural and architectural aspects of this topic might be necessary, along with additional, peer-reviewed sources to help improve the reliability and credibility of the article's content. The strengths of this article are in its neutral tone and balance, along with the inclusion of only information relevant to the topic.