User:Hadley.milos/B+H Architects/Kolbie.Fung Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Hadley.milos
• Link to draft you're reviewing: B+H Architects

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes, but can be elaborated.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? no

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? no
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? yes

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? yes
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? no
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? no
• Are the sources current? yes
• Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes, but needs more.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes but needs more development. More subsections

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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? yes but the sources itself can be more in depth.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? no exhausted but I believe should have more content for the significance of the firm.
• 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? yes
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It is a start. I think there can be more development within the history and current day relevance topics.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The content so far seems to start the topics of history and significant projects that can further be explored. The wording is nice and easy to understand. And very unbiased.
• How can the content added be improved?The topic seems to have an abundance of notability, relevance. I think the resources can be more developed as there seems to be a lot of publications in regards to their work. I also think that IF focusing on the notable projects, maybe elaborate on their most famous and important ones like the ones with big architects ie. Mies, Calatrava, Libeskind etc.