| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I have completed a major rewrite to it and would like others to check that it appears well crafted. I know that spelling and grammar are not my strong suits so I'd love some input on that throughout the article, but I'd also like to know if there seems to be any gaps, any extraneous information, or anything that the article leaves you wondering. I hope to propose this as a GA after this peer review.
Thanks, Found5dollar (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Review by HenryCrun15
editHi @Found5dollar: as requested I've looked over the document particularly for spelling and grammar.
- I've made a number of edits to the article, mostly general copyediting and rearranging of material.
- I have removed excessive detail about some events tangentially related to the desk. This includes lots of fine detail around the changes to the White House buildings during the 1902 renovations and the details on the 1929 fire (which I moved to the article on the West Wing itself).
- On the description of the desk, the article mentions "masculine lines". What does this mean?
- There isn't anything about the desk I found myself wanting to know - the article covered everything I could think of.
- I have not reviewed the article for verifiability. I've taken as read that the inline citations back up the statements in the article. If that's something you want checked, be aware I haven't done that.
Overall it looks good. Well done! HenryCrun15 (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- @HenryCrun15: Thank you so much for this review and edits! My life has unexpectedly gotten extremely busy so I'm sorry for the delayed response. I'll look more at this when things calm down in about a week or so. Thank you again!--Found5dollar (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)