User:Athreshold/Hariri Pontarini Architects/Francesca.F22 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? Athreshold
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Hariri Pontarini Architects

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
- Good, brief lead.

- Good overview of awards and buildings that the firm is known for

- Maybe move dates of when the firm was founded to the beginning of your lead, rather than the end?

- Maybe include further backround information on the firm itself, including Siamak Hariri and David Pontarini

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
- Good overview of past and future projects the firm is associated with.

- Maybe elaborate more on the firm itself, for example the history of the firm, how it was first established, how many people are currently working in the firm etc.

- Content is very project and award- based

- What makes this firm and their projects different from the rest?

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
- Content is very neutral, only stating proved facts

- Good use of direct quotes

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
- Extensive list of sources both current and reliable

- All writing is backed up by references

- Maybe find more sources that include published books?

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
- Writing is really well done and clear

- Grammar/spelling has no errors

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
- As of now there are no images, but if you can find one that works, it would be great to add!!!

- Maybe some images of most notable projects?

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
- Very good use of links to other wikipedia articles

- More credible sources such as books or journals could be added

- Break up the firm's section headings a bit - add info to the firm itself

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
- As mentioned above, the article is very well written, well researched in terms of projects and awards

- Good in-text citations and references

'''- However elaborate on the firm, why is the firm so popular in Toronto, what was their timeline, where did the founders meet and how did they come together? What were some struggles or setbacks, if any? What is their connection and importance to Toronto?'''

- Maybe even briefly extrapolate on notable buildings/projects

- Good Job Daniel!!!