User talk:Justinbrock36/Roman architectural revolution/Hmcclenn Peer Review

Peer review

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Justinbrock36 Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_architectural_revolution Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? -I cant quite tell what was added. I'm not sure if I just cant find a way to see that or if we are just supposed to review the whole article. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? -Yes Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? -There aren't separate sections so no, but the lead does include brief information that gets followed up in the over all larger paragraph. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? -No Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? -It seems clear and concise. Lead evaluation Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? -I am assuming so since the whole page is cohesive to the topic. Is the content added up-to-date? -Yes Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? -I am not sure if there is content missing but it would have been nice to have seen Roman architectural revolution broken up into different sections based on time developments or huge break throughs. Content evaluation Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? -Yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? -No Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? -Perhaps just more information is needed to really tell people what certain things are and how they were made? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? -No Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? -Seems so Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? -Yes Are the sources current? -Yeah Check a few links. Do they work? - The one webpage link worked. Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? -Not fully through out, it seems a bit text/jargin heavy. I had to re-read a few sentences to fully understand them. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? -Not that I noticed Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? -Like stated before, I wish there were more sections to fully dicuss the revolution Organization evaluation Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? -There is only one image and yes it does. Are images well-captioned? -Yes Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? -I think so Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? -Yes Images and media evaluation 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? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? -I think so, but without knowing what was added or if it was a completely new article (which it might be?) I cant quite say yes or no. What are the strengths of the content added? -In depth information How can the content added be improved? -Broken up into sections to add more information, easier to read and understand! But overall good job :) Overall evaluation

Hmcclenn (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)