User talk:Misfit1723/sandbox/Queen's House

peer review
1. The article does a great job of providing historical context to the construction, maintenance, and shifting use of the Queen’s house in the United Kingdom.Within this wikipedia page there is a good structure which outlines the important aspects of this structure and its uses. The sections that are going to be added to the article seem to be important for expanding the article to be more well-rounded.

2.  There is some awkward sentence structure and phrasing throughout the article and the citations seem to be lacking and/or weird looking. The information that has quite a few issues seem to be what was originally in the article, and just needs some proofreading and maintenance issues. Such as the first sentence of the second paragraph in the lead section: “Some earlier English buildings, such as Longleat and Burghley House, had made borrowings from the classical style, but these were restricted to small details that had not been applied systematically, or the building may be a mix of different styles '' I would change it to “...has borrowed from classical styles.” “But these appropriated details were minimally introduced into the English style canon…” this is just an example. Some other issues I noticed was the lead section doesn’t have a citation to corroborate the information listed. In the Early History section it lacks many citations and has some awkwards sentences (“However, the house's original use was short—no more than seven years—before the English Civil War began in 1642 and swept away the court culture from which it sprang.”). The 19th-century Additions section also has some awkward sentences, such as “This necessitated new accommodation wings…”. The Recent Years section, “In 2012, the grounds to the south of the Queen's House…” could be changed to “In 2012, the grounds south of the Queen’s House…”.

3. Based upon the information in the current state of the article, the major edits that are needed are connecting/fixing the citations to the facts listed in the article as well as fixing some awkward phrasing.

4. Overall, the article has a good descriptive lead section that just needs some editing and is fairly balanced and neutral in its distribution of facts. One of the larger fixes for this article would be fixing the confusing citations, as it doesn’t give the sources for a majority of the facts outlined. Lrsteele103 (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)