User:Aghafoori/Atelier TAG/Catherinewang24 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? Aghafoori
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Aghafoori/Atelier TAG

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A since this is a new article.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence concisely and clearly describes Atelier TAG. The lead provides quick and concise details of what the firm is, without going into too much detail. Be sure to include a brief description of the article's major sections. The main article does not mention the derivation of "TAG", as well as the number of people in the team (don't forget to mention it in the main 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? Yes

Content evaluation
The info is up-to-date and relevant to the topic. Needs more info added into the content portion of the article.

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? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article is neutral, with no heavy bias towards a particular position. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented. The content does not persuade the reader to favor one position over the other.

Sources and References
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
The content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The sources are thorough, reflecting the literature on the topic. The sources are current and the links work.

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? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
The content is well-written - it is concise, clear, and easy to read. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. The content is well-organized.

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
N/A

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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

New Article Evaluation
The article meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements, with 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. There are a good amount of sources in the list, with a variety of available literature on the subject. The article follows the patterns of other similar articles. The article links to other articles so it is more discoverable.

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?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The article overall lists all major content for Atelier TAG. It provides good sources that back up the information written. Overall good job!