User:Mcgovekc/Indigenous architecture/Lrli Peer Review

General info
Mcgovekc
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMcgovekc%2FIndigenous_architecture_in_North_America&action=edit&wvprov=sticky-header
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

While I do think the lead is well-written in general, I don't think it quite fits the specifications of a wikipedia article lead. I think the first sentence should just be something rather plain that defines the topic of the article such as "Indigenous Architecture in North America describes different styles in the construction and design of buildings by indigenous communities throughout North America." Then you can follow up with the first sentence you have here. Also the lead does not have a brief rundown of the article's major sections, so perhaps adding one or two sentences to describe them would do the trick.

Content and Tone/Balance:

I definitely have very little to say with regards to both as I feel the article is very satisfactory in terms of content and tone. Every section is nicely elaborated upon and interesting and I trust that all the content reflects up-to-date information as all of your sources come from the last 20 years at least. Additionally, no content feels out of place and I think the way you have divided the article by looking at indigenous styles by geography and then important architects/architectural projects is very logical. Also, your tone certainly reflects that of a neutral author throughout the article and every fact you mention is nicely bolstered by a footnote, so I can be sure that nothing here is based on strictly your opinions.

Sources/References

As stated before, all your content seems nicely backed up by the plethora of sources and citations you have as references. I looked through some of the sources and they seem very reflective of what you ended up putting down. While I cannot be certain that the sources reflect a thorough look at Indigenous Architecture in North America, it obviously is a very broad topic, and judging from the sections you have already put down and the array of footnotes you have throughout, I'm incline to believe that you have the appropriate breadth and depth of information for a topic this broad. Also as stated before, all sources seem nicely within the last 20 years, so I am confident that all the content in the article is reflective of up-to-date consensus on the topic.

Organization

Each section seems nicely concise and easy to read. I struggled to find any grammatical errors and I'm sure that any casual reader will not either. As said before, I think describing different architectural styles by region was probably the way to go, especially when you have to give an overview of the discipline throughout North America. One small complaint I have is that the section of schooling seems a little out of place in the context of the rest of the article. I do understand that discussing the education of indigenous architecture is important but I think its importance in the article is a bit overstated. However, I do think its role in the article is much more justified if you can expand on it a bit more. For example, you mentioned some institutions that have courses on indigenous architecture. Maybe you could mention more about the content/curricula of these courses or who the professors are and their accolades.

Overall Impressions:

I think you have done a really good job with the article. Everything is nicely written, backed by good sources, and reflective of neutral tone. With the exception of the section on schooling, I think everything else is nicely elaborated upon, developed, and not out of place. If you can continue expanding the schooling section and tweak some things regarding the lead, I think the article will be close to perfect.