User:ToriTrouble/Architecture of Baku/DvDel Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

 * Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

No, consider adding a phrase or sentence in reference to your content. Maybe at the end of this sentence in the article's lead: "In itself, Baku contains a wide variety of styles, progressing through Masud Ibn Davud's 12th century Maiden Tower and the educational institutions and buildings of the Russian Imperial era [add something here perhaps, ie. '...influenced by ...' or '...funded by...']."

The other questions are not relevant as this is adding to an existing article with a preexisting lead. However, if you were to edit the lead of the existing article, you might consider making more concise the first two sentences. They could share one line.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, all content added is relevant.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Since line citations are lacking, it's hard to tell. Add citations so that uncertainties like this don't arise!


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

All content is relevant, however it could be made more concise and factual in some areas. For example, the first paragraph has an improper tone for Wikipedia, it is too broad and overarching rather than specific and factual. As an example, I edited this part with line-by-line commentary in the next section to show how to neutralize the tone a little bit. Similar edits should be extended throughout the article.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?\

Not directly.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?

See the commentary below. Although it is largely factual, the tone could be neutralized as shown. I edited the beginning as this part had the most not neutral language.

First line: With the boom of the oil industry in Baku and Azerbaijan in general came the great influx of both foreign western cash and ideas.

EDIT --> With the boom of the oil industry in Baku and Azerbaijan came an influx of western money and ideas.

-- avoid dramatizing words (ie. "in general," "great," or misrepresentations like "cash.")

Second Line: Eclectic architecture fusing not only east and west, but western styles as well became prevalent in the architecture found in the city outside the medieval walls. Local oil industrialists also had the opportunity to travel, particularly to Europe, where they came back with ideas of the European architectural styles, and had both the want and the capital to recreate them.

EDIT --> This resulted in the popularization of western styles, which became prevalent in the architecture found in the city outside the medieval walls. Concurrently, a fusion of eastern and western styles began to emerge. Local oil industrialists also had the opportunity to travel, particularly to Europe, returning with the ideas of European architectural styles, now possessing both the desire and capital to recreate them.

-- establish continuity between sentences (with transitions) to illustrate chronology and logic. Be more clear and direct in sentence structure.

Third line: In a stark contrast to the heavily industrialized "Black City" of the eastern side of Baku, the opposite side of the city saw the heavy development of the "White City." They differed in their urban patterns as well: the Black city has very a very dense, orthogonal block structure, and the White city had a sprawling, more flexible structure, originally meant for industrial adaptation.

EDIT --> In contrast to the already industrialized "Black City" of the eastern side of Baku, the western side of the city saw the development of the "White City." They differed in their urban patterns as well: the Black city had a dense, orthogonal block structure, and the White city had a sprawling, more flexible structure, originally meant for industrial adaptation.

-- avoid dramatizing words (ie. "stark", "heavily", "heavy, "very" -- these things are hard to substantiate). Be more specific with descriptive terms (ie. "opposite")

Fourth line: What had started as an oil boom in Baku soon turned to a construction one with the quick and massive influx of capital to the city. Contemporaries commented on how fast the city developed, a sleepy Persian town to a thriving metropolis in only a decade. The city's population grew rapidly, at a rate faster than contemporary New York.

EDIT --> What had started as an oil boom in Baku soon turned to a construction one with the quick and significant influx of capital to the city. Contemporaries commented on how fast the city developed; "... this needs to be a quote! ". The city's population grew rapidly, at a rate faster than contemporary New York.

-- again, careful with word choice, you want to avoid being too assertive if it cant be substantiated. "significant" is more cautious ie instead of "massive." The commentary on it's transformation from a "sleepy persian town" to a "thirving metropolis" needs to be something in quote format, otherwise its far too assertive and non-factual.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No, although the lack of citations make them unsubstantiated.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

None that are apparent.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

No, citations lacking.


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

As far as the citations exist it does.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes, they seem fairly diverse.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

To the necessary extent


 * 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.)

Try exploring UM's library website for dissertations and articles on the topic. But there is only one website, the rest are articles and books.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

There's a bit of imprecision in some parts (see edits above). However, besides the beginning, it is largely clear.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, the organization is effective.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes, this adds a lot of information. It also provides interesting contextual info, but citations are needed! Statements need to be backed up as frequently as possible.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

Definitely well researched and detailed. Lots of precision with dates and names. Informational.


 * How can the content added be improved?

Mainly adding citations and style edits in the vein of the examples I wrote above.