User:Oak Moran/Great house (pueblo)/Smithereens.2 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? (provide username) Oak Moran
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Great house (pueblo)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is pretty well done. There are some grammatical errors and the flow of the sentences seem a bit off. The Lead was updated by me peer. The introductory sentence does describe the article's topic, as it gives the definition of that a great house is. However, I think it would be beneficial if the great house description was specifically about the great house in Pueblo, not just what a great house is in general. The lead does a good job of briefly mentioning the other sections that are going to be talked about. The only section that was missing was the influence section from the lead section. The lead section contains some information that is not in the article, for example more detail outlining what a 'great house' is and the "history" behind them. Overall, the lead was very concise and to the point. It outlined the future sections to come which was very good, but grammar and the flow of the sentences used could be improved upon.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content added to the article is relevant to the topic. They add to the reader's overall understanding of what the article topic is. The information added could be stronger and more in depth. However, given the site is so old, the lack of certain information is understandable. The content is up to date considering the age of the site. The sources added were updated in 2012, 2006, and 2002. While the information used from the source that is from 2002 is almost 20 years old, that is still very recent compared to the close to 1500 years old the site is. While I don't believe there is much content missing per say, the existent content absolutely could be expanded further upon.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is very neutral. The author of the article did a very good job of that. There are no bias claims or ideas. It appears everything is very factual. The viewpoints are underrepresented. There are small facts given in very little detail. The content added doe snot sway the reader in any way because there is no bias at all in the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The author used three new sources with the information added. Two of the sources are books with no links and the third source is a journal excerpt. I believe the sources are reliable, absolutely. The sources do add to the article and are relevant. It would be nice if more sources were used and expanded upon to get more information about the 'Great house'. The sources again are within the last 20 years so relevant to how old the site is, the sources are very current. The links to the books do not work but the link to the journal excerpt does work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content added is okay. More detail and thought could have been put into finding more information on the subject and presenting it in a manner that was easy and nice to read. The sentences did not flow very well together and some of the grammar was poor. The article lacked a lot of quality, new information. The information added was very vague and and short. The content is well organized. The sections only talk about what they are supposed to, they don't wander into other topics.

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?

Images and media evaluation
No images appear to be added to the article.

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?

Overall evaluation
Overall the article is pretty good. The organization was nice, simple, and to the point. The pictures were good. The content added did enhance the article in a way. The reader would be able to know more about the topic with the edits the author added to the existing article than they would have without the edits. To improve, again, just improve the writing style and a couple of grammar additions. I would also suggest more research on the topic to add more detail to allow the reader to gain a deeper understanding of the topic.