User:Skylareades/Antebellum Architecture/Myrepauls 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? Skylareades
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Antebellum architecture

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 does a good job overall of giving the concise history and style of Antebellum architecture. However, this was not a part of the article that Skylar edited. Thus, it could possibly use a few updates directly related to the content she added. It could also benefit from a brief summary of the major sections that are covered in the article, as some do not seem to be expressly mentioned in the leading. Most everything in the leading does relate to content in the article which is helpful, but it could be useful to have more information on the styles listed that characterized the Antebellum style.

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 does seem clearly relevant to the topic. It also appears to be up-to-date, she even added some content about FEMA, which is an organization that helps to preserve important structures, including those damaged by Katrina. All of the content added is concise and beneficial to the article. It could be helpful to have even a little more information on the Georgian, Greek Revival, and Neo-classical style since those are listed as characteristic of the Antebellum style in the leading. One other thought would be to add Wiki page links to a few of the words in the content added to the "Key Features" section, as a few of the terms were features I was unfamiliar with.

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 neutral in tone and does not reflect any bias. There was not really any content added that reflected a particular viewpoint, rather just simple statements of fact. There seems to be no attempt made to persuade the viewer over to a particular position from the content added.

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
From what I can tell it looks like most of the added content has source information given at the end of the fact. There is one that I am unsure of as there is a citation given at the end of the sentence but not directly after her added content and it was retrieved in 2017. The sources do sound like they apply to the topic as the titles seem directly related to the topic and/or the content added. The sources also appear current as the ones I looked at were from the last 10 years or so. There was one citation link that appeared to be missing its URL?

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 was concise and clear, but possibly the wording and grammar could be improved on a bit. The content added was placed in its appropriate major section. Possibly the organization in the "Key Features" section could be experimented with a little?

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 or media added by peer.

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 content added most definitely improved the quality of the article through her addition of valuable information that was not previously stated in the article. This article was a great choice as it is quite brief and lacking content. Sklar helped improve it by adding useful information to the topic. There was a decent amount of information added to the "Key Features" section which was beneficial to understanding the features of the Antebellum style. Two suggestion would be to add more steps that are being taken to preserve the Antebellum properties and to revise the wording in parts of the content. But great choice of article and content!