User:Mdcarroll99/High-tech architecture/Cawley L 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)

Mdcarroll99

Link to draft you're reviewing:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=High-tech_architecture&oldid=928985961

Revision 23:04, December 2 2019

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

The lead looks to have summarized the content in the overall article. The introduction sentence clearly expresses what the overall architectural style is while the entire first paragraph gives a little bit more context to the overall idea. The idea of "serviced sheds" is not present in the content of the article specifically but that is the only content in the lead and not stated in the content.

There is a quite a bit of information in the lead of this article and some could probably be moved to a different section to keep it more concise. In order to express all the ideas in the content, the first paragraphs seem to be to the point but the last could be condensed into the ideas:

"High-tech utilizes a focus on factory aesthetics and a large central space serviced by many smaller maintenance areas to evoke a feeling of openness, honesty, and transparency. The style's premier practitioners include Colombo-American architect Bruce Graham and Bangladeshi-American architect Fazlur Rahman Khan, British architects Sir Norman Foster, Sir Richard Rogers, Sir Michael Hopkins, Italian architect Renzo Piano and Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava." from High-tech architecture

Then I would add the early styles primarily consist of iron and that information into the background information because you already had the information in the first paragraph along with the date of 1970's.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

Overall it looks like the information is up to date because most of them are from this past year.

-Background-

The content is relevant to the topic and has wonderful links to other articles for further information. One thing that I would try to expand upon the idea of "servant" and "served" spaces. I guess I could go to the link from the person that came up with the theory but since it is directly relevant to this style of architecture I would at least give a condensed version.

I would simplify this sentence:

"Other projects and designs that contained or inspired elements common across the high-tech style include the Archigram member Mike Webb's concept of bowellism, the Fun Palace by Cedric Price, and the Walking City by Ron Herron, also a member of Archigram." from High-tech architecture.

You can condense it by putting Ron Herron and Mike Webb together and say they are both members of Archigram. Splitting them up isn't very straight forward.

-Characteristics-
"...hugely influential in both the design, choice of materials, and ultimate expression of many of the earliest high-tech buildings in Britain, and as such many of these designs are suffused with a focus on the aesthetics of engineering and construction." from High-tech architecture.

I don't think that both should be used when you have 4 different points in this sentence.

The moveable interiors and interchangeable rooms sound really cool!

-Goals-

First looking at this section I noticed that there was a lot of information and no links to other Wikipedia pages. I would add a couple of those in there to refer to more free information.

The ideal of "spirit of the age" is a good point but because it is not referenced anywhere else in the section, you might want to take out the first sentence.

I would maybe take the last paragraph and move it underneath the second one because ending on that paragraph is a little confusing after you talk about how it bends the rules of transparency and comfort.

The references and examples look good at the end.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

Tone kept within the realms of informative and to educate. Within this article there did not seem to be any sort of bias and each bit of information was cited.

It didn't seem that there were any underrepresented or overrepresented, it was a fairly nice article.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

There are many different sources that all appear to be recent and reliable for information on this topic.

The source with Colin Davies as the author doesn't redirect to the intended source, it only asks for a login on some database. The URL should probably be taken out of the citation.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

There are a few changes to sentences and organization that I included in the content section. Overall the organization is straight forward and easy to read through.

Spelling and grammar didn't seem to be a problem in this article, so good job!

On a side note, should the title be all capitalized? If so, that would be a change to make in the organization of the article.

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?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

The images are well organized and contribute nicely to the article. Each of them are cited and include a little caption of what you are viewing.

Each of the photos are from the Wikipedia media source so copyright regulations are all met with the images added.

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?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
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?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation

Not a new article, only a revision.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

The article has been greatly improved in many aspects:

- Opinions are no longer included in the article so it has less bias as per Wikipedia standards

- Sources now back up the information in the article, making it more reliable information

- More background is given to the reader and the organization has been altered to focus on the main topics within the style

- Clearer content so that the reader understands no matter how much knowledge they have of architecture

Some more recent high-tech architecture buildings could be put in to update the list of examples. More pictures of the architecture could be used to continually improve the article.

These are just some suggestions when it comes to the organization and content of the article, but overall this article has been improved because of the current revision.