User:Lkirkley/Folk Victorian/Poudretteite Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * — Lkirkley
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * — Folk Victorian — There isn't a sandbox, but changes may be viewed in the article's History.
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):
 * — Folk Victorian

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Although the lead wasn't edited much, one could argue that it still reflects the body in some respect. The lead discusses Folk Victorian architecture as a whole, distinguishing it from general Victorian architecture, and some examples are listed. The body discusses the specific features of Folk Victorian homes — which is arguably expounding on the contrast made in the lead — and how the Industrial Revolution led to the style catching on, which may also be reflected in the years presented in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, although the "subset of Victorian architecture" statement may do better as part of that sentence. It's strange to get into the nitty-gritty of Folk Victorian and then be given a more general term such as that. Otherwise, the introductory sentence is decent — it notes that Folk Victorian is a style and states where and when it occurred.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The response to the first question of this section covers this.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes — there are examples of Folk Victorian homes present in the lead but not the article's body. Ultimately, though, this is because the article is a stub: The list of examples fits best in the lead in the article's current state because the list's elements aren't discussed in any detail. As the article is expanded, these items should find their way into the body and potentially out of the lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Again, as the article is expanded upon the lead could probably be shortened a bit, but as it stands the lead is a fair length. It would be outside the scope of this assignment for the editor to trim down the lead, because anything trimmed down would need to be moved into the body of the article and, therefore, expanded upon.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The added content is definitely relevant to the topic. A discussion of the features of Folk Victorian homes has been added, as has a brief note about why they became popular. These points were not discussed prior to the edits, and the article benefits from them. Additional citations have also been added to round out the citations list a bit.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I believe the content is up to date. The only source I could check the date on was from 2022, but the other two sources also appear to be relatively new — or, at the very least, not overly old. Nothing in the article comes across as dated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I believe that all the added content belongs in the article. There are certainly some gaps throughout the article, though, given its size. In particular, the article states, "For those who were moving to the West needed simple and quick methods for building a house. The easy access to all of the light weight lumber, helped to create a pre-cut and inexpensive way to get an iteration of the Victorian home." The information presented isn't problematic, but it's not clear why people chose a Folk Victorian style as opposed to some other style. If one needed a "simple and quick method for building a house," why would they opt to make an ornate structure as opposed to a minimalistic one? A few more sentences could probably be added here to discuss that. Further, a cause-and-effect relationship is created between the Industrial Revolution and the Folk Victorian style, but why did the former lead to the latter? Was there a particular symbolism in Folk Victorian that resonated with the Industrial Revolution? Did the style become popular because it was simple to make, thanks to the Industrial Revolution?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article doesn't deal with an equity gap. There's potential that it may step into discussion of an equity gap during further expansion, but that discussion isn't entirely vital to the article, so it's not "missing" it, either.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The added content is neutral. Everything is cited, and there isn't much room for opinion to enter the added content anyway.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No — see the response to the last question.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * For lack of a better place to put it, the article appears to lean toward American Folk Victorian since it's centered around "those who were moving to the West." However, the editor made a point of adding "Europe" to the lead as a place the style occurred. Assuming "West" doesn't refer to western Europe, a discussion that explicitly notes both American and European Folk Victorian architecture would be a good idea.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No — see my response to the first question of this section.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All new content is cited, and the book the editor has referenced appears to be very reliable. The Santa Barbara source appears to be reliable as well, though another source with similar content might be beneficial to back it up since that source is smaller. The Perinton Historical Society source may be reliable, but the correct page wasn't cited (one is taken to the home page) so it's hard to say.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * I couldn't check two of the sources because one was a book and the other was cited incorrectly. The Santa Barbara document was reflected mostly accurately in the article, though the article suggests that a two-story home with a single-story porch made up "the typical home" while the document called it "one standard type" — not necessarily the most typical one. Also (and this isn't the article's fault so much as the Santa Barbara document's), in this description, is the home itself two stories, or just the gable? As for the cited book, although I can't read it, does it mention anything about Folk Victorian homes? The title seems to suggest that it's about churches, and not necessarily Folk Victorian ones at that. At the very least, a page citation in the reference would be beneficial.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The book may be a thorough source, and the Santa Barbara document appears to be relatively thorough — at least for American Folk Victorian architecture.
 * Are the sources current?
 * It appears so — I discussed this under "Content."
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * It's hard to say, since only three sources have been cited. As it stands I would say the authors might not be diverse, but the article isn't at a point where that diversity starts becoming necessary. At the very least, the three sources are distinct from one another — for instance, the same author wasn't cited thrice.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * There are certainly some other good sources out there:
 * https://architecturestyles.org/folk-victorian/
 * https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/infocom/scndempr/school.html
 * However, Folk Victorian might be a tough subject to find an abundance of work on.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * As aforementioned, the link to the historical society took me to the home page, not whatever article was referenced. The hyperlinks in the article itself work.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is definitely concise, getting straight to the point without talking about minutiae or using superfluous language. The only exception is that in "The easy access to all of the light weight lumber", "all of the" isn't necessary. The additions aren't the clearest; this is discussed more below.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes — the article needs to be copyedited. "Industrial Revolution," to the best of my knowledge, should be capitalized, and there are a few sentence fragments. Some minor notes:
 * The colon can be removed.
 * The final item in a list should be preceded with "and".
 * "Two stories", but "single-story porch".
 * "Lightweight" is one word.
 * Remove the comma after "lumber".
 * Currently, "pre-cut" describes "way", not the lumber.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is split in a way that makes sense. A distinct header for the features of the style would be nice upon further expansion of the article.

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, but no images appear to have been added. The article at its current length does not need more images, though — they might crowd out the content.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The image captions are decent.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I'm not sure whether the images adhere to the regulations, but since the images didn't come from the editor, that doesn't matter too much.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * At the moment, no — they're placed into a gallery at the bottom of the article. As the article is expanded, they could be better integrated.

Overall Impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Definitely — The content adds some history to the article, and the common features are a very important topic when discussing any style.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Primarily, as aforementioned, the added content has provided needed dimension to the article. The article's original form only vaguely discussed Folk Victorian, but the additions have helped to clarify what Folk Victorian actually is and have started to define its context.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The primary improvements the added content could use are a copyedit and expansion (in particular answering "why" with regards to the style).