Talk:Great house (pueblo)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Additional Sources for Article Improvement

I plan on using these sources to add more information to this article.

1. Price, V. B., and Baker H. Morrow. Anasazi Architecture and American Design. Vol. 1st ed, University of New Mexico Press, 1997.

2. Fahlman, Betsy. "Mary Colter: Architect of the Southwest Arnold Berke." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 61, no. 3.

3. Jarzombek, Mark. Architecture of first societies: a global perspective. Wiley, 2013.

Oak Moran (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Both Architecture of First Societies and Anasazi: Architecture & American Design have a whole lot more information that can be added to the article.

Oak Moran (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It also looks like the Chaco Culture Historical Park article has a fair bit of information on great houses, though most of it is not properly cited.

Oak Moran (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review For Your Article

Hi Oak,

I have chosen to peer review your article about 'Great House (in Pueblo)'. The lead is pretty well done. There are some grammatical errors and the flow of the sentences seem a bit off. The introductory sentence does describe the article's topic, as it gives the definition of what a great house is. However, I think it would be beneficial if the great house description was specifically about the great house in Pueblo as well, 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.

The content added to the article is relevant to the topic. It adds 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 age of the site. While I don't believe there is much content missing per say, the existent content absolutely could be expanded further upon.

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 does not sway the reader in any way because there is no bias at all in the article. 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, scholarly sources. The sources 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. The lead section however, does not have any information cited even though new information was added to the section. The other information in other sections were cited well.

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. No images appear to be added to the article.

Overall the article is pretty good. The organization was nice, simple, and to the point. The pictures that existed 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.

Smithereens.2 (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Smithereens.2