User:Dlwldud715/Gh3*/Brosano 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

• I am reviewing User Dlwldud715's article on Gh3
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Dlwldud715/Gh3*

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
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation

The Lead is easy to understand and clearly outlines what the rest of the article will touch on without explaining too much. There is no information included in the lead that is not further explained later on in the article.

Content

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

All content is relevant to the topic at hand and is fully explained.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Mostly
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sometimes

Tone and balance evaluation

Although most statements are neutral, some parts of the article are written in favor of the firm and loses the neutral undertone required for a Wikipedia article. This is mostly just in the design philosophy and approach section like the sentence "Their integrated design method enhances the quality of the experience on site, and highlights sustainability." Having a long list of all awards won is also a little bit overwhelming, a more concise list of ost recent or most important awards with a link out to their website may be a better option?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Mostly
• 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

The sources chosen are relevant and current to the topic of the article however, there are some areas where there are 4-5 sentences with only one citation at the end. This can make it unclear as to whether all sentences are based on the one source or not.

Organization

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? Some
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation

The article is organized well and has sections and subsections that accurately title what is to follow. The subsections break up large sections well. The content within each section and subsection is chosen well and works within each chosen section. There are various spelling/grammar errors in the article that should be reviewed before moving content out of the sandbox.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (Not applicable as there are no images added yet)

• 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?

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
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
• 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? Mostly
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No

New Article Evaluation

The sources chosen for the article seem to be exhaustive of what is available on the subject.

The article does not contain the info box that is typically at the top right of a page like this one that would have a brief overview like: logo, company name, opening year, principle architects, notable projects and awards. The article also does not yet link to any other articles to improve the discoverability and enhance the understanding of those reading the article.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
• What are the strengths of the content added? includes various different aspects of the firm and is exhaustive in research
• How can the content added be improved? more concise, more sources to improve reliability

Overall evaluation

Overall, the article is very good at explaining all information about the architecture firm. The information included could possibly become more concise and in doing this the chosen information can be explained more in depth. In order to improve the reliability of the article, more information in the article could be sourced.