User:JuneBug522/Charles Eastlake/Lgilbe11 Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

JuneBug522

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JuneBug522/Charles_Eastlake?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Charles Eastlake

Evaluate the drafted changes

Here's my peer review for you,

Lead

• The intro is very brief and informative. Although the lead of your article is very straightforward and fairly concise, try to include citations for the claims made, especially since there are not any sources listed until the next section. Careful not to stray away from the subject - for instance, the statement on Charles Eastlake's uncle could be rearranged to have a clearer focus on their relationship, rather than going off topic by discussing the uncle's personal history. Overall it is very unbiased, but I find that there were some key moments in the main body that could have been introduced in the lead and vise versa (like where he studied or even a brief mention of some of the books he wrote.)

Content

• As for your content, everything is very relevant to his history and importance. (Do you know if there were any modern/up-to-date sources though, cause most of the ones listed seem to be from the 70's?) That being said, this section is very clear and nothing stands out unreasonably. You did a good job editing the information on his personal history. However, I think I would have liked to learn more about what his role was in history based on what he has made as an architect/furniture designer... Also, as a side note, it mentions that he did not practice as an architect, so I was curious why he described as one?

Tone and Balance

• Everything seems to be very informative, taking a neutral stance. Nothing seems to persuade the reader to take sides and all viewpoints appear to add to the information rather than sway towards one perspective.

Sources and References

• From what it looks like, all of what I believe is the 'new' content appears to be linked to a reliable source... Though there were some claims made that were not attached to any kind of source - e.g. in the lead section, the part where it mentions who he trained under, and so on. The sources appear to be thorough, reliable, and specifically connected to the content. Although, in the citation, I would suggest including a rough estimate of the page numbers where the information was found on for a better reference - so one does not need to read the entirety of the source material to find the statement. As mentioned earlier, it might also be helpful to find some contemporary sources from a variety of authors based around his works (especially since most of the ones you included were written by the architect himself, which could be both reliable yet biased.) That said, the links all seem to be working well!

Organization

• For the most part, everything is very readable and easy to understand. Although it was mostly clear and concise, there are a few parts where I would suggest you try to watch out for comma splices and oddly phrased sentence structures, since those do distract from the flow of the sentences. (Check your grammar to see if there is a better way to phrase something - for example, there may be a clearer way to describe his death and burial without using so many commas.) With that, I did not come across any misspellings and the information appears to be well-organized in a thematic manner.

Images and Media

• I like the addition of your image, it helps the article by giving us a better understanding of what kinds of works he had designed and even provides us with a connection to his books. Furthermore, on the wiki-page, the images are laid out very neatly and combined with a clear caption.

Overall impressions

• The sources/content improve the article a lot due to the information it provides, giving readers a bit more on his background and personal history. Each individual section is also well organized and flows thematically into the next, and essentially every point makes sense and adds to the article in an unbiased way. So far, it is a lot more reliable since it now has 5-6 sources, however you might what to find a secondary source made by a different author so it is not as unbalanced (rather than just using the primary source author.) Although I think there is more that could be included, it is so much closer towards feeling complete.

Hope this helps,

- Lydia Gilbert