User:Tkmurray/Brian MacKay-Lyons/Nicohlii Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
- TKmurray (Taylor Murray)
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- No, the lead does not mention new content added (eg. Career, Ghost Lab, Design Philosophy).
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes
- 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?
- No
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The lead paragraph is short and concise, but it may also be worthwhile to mention his firm name, or briefly mention more information on other sections covered in the article.
Lead evaluation: Could be reviewed
[edit]Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- No
Content evaluation: Good
[edit]Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Yes
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- I think it may be important to note how Brian took a master-apprentice approach to his teaching and the dynamic between architect to intern at his firm. This was part of his relationship with Talbot, and I think goes back to his roots of craft, tradition, etc.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No, article is neutral tone
Tone and balance evaluation: Good
[edit]Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes
- Are the sources current?
- Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes
Sources and references evaluation: Good
[edit]Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- "Before MacKay-Lyons partnership with Sweetapple" > "Before MacKay-Lyons' partnership with Sweetapple" (add apostrophe after MacKay-Lyons)
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, but I feel that the "Design Philosophy" section could be renamed to "Design Influences and Philosophy." Currently, the section talks a lot about his Arcadian upbringing and the influences it has in his design and work - the info presented may fit better under a section with that title.
- Structure of Design Philosophy section could be improved a little, the paragraphs seem disconnected from each other (it was difficult writing the design philosophy section!)
Organization evaluation: Could be reviewed
[edit]Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- (N/A)
- Are images well-captioned?
- (N/A)
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- (N/A)
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- (N/A)
Images and media evaluation
[edit]For New Articles Only
[edit]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?
- (N/A)
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- (N/A)
- 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?
- (N/A)
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
- (N/A)
New Article Evaluation
[edit]Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes, it covers more aspects of his life and design philosophy that was not previously mentioned.
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- Thoroughly covers his background, education and career.
- How can the content added be improved?
- Perhaps add some of his residential projects into the infobox, practice name, and a nice headshot photo of Brian (if possible, to comply with copyright restrictions) !