User:Au.andrea/LGA Architectural Partners/Wonseob.jung 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)
 * Au,andrea (Andrea Au) - LGA Architectural Partners
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * LGA Architectural Partners

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the Lead is updated with brief introductory by the peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introductory sentence has a clear idea of what the article is going to be about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Partially. Although the Lead mentions what the firm specializes and its main projects, I think it might be better to include maybe one or two sentences that summarizes the firm history, people and design approach as well.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it only contains the key topic of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise and contains essence of the entire article. However, it can contain some brief details that further support the information. For example, date of establishment of the firm can be included.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content elaborates on the firm and its information.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, it mostly touches up on the past record of the firm. Therefore, it might be encouraged to add their current state of the firm such as what some of the partners within the firm presently stands as, do they have another ongoing role along their partnership.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All contents are relevant and contains appropriate article sections. This may be still being worked on but they can be further elaborated with greater overview. For example, people section might be considered to be broken down further with different partners so that they each have a different heading. Then, they can briefly contain background history for each of them, as well as design philosophies.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content is fairly neutral with displaying of just facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No heavily biased positions.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not necessarily underrepresented but some of them sure can be supported with maybe public or jury opinions. For example, under Design Approach, it says, "With a portfolio of spaces that innovate, inspire and improves people’s lives, the firm has been recognised with a multitude of design excellence awards." This can be maybe further supported and rationalized by saying who is making the judgement of their portfolio of work. In other words, how their designed spaces innovates and etc. is maybe not entirely included in the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, sounds neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All sources seem reliable and suggest unbiased information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, most of them have a thorough availability of information on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some of the sources might be published years ago but I don't think it will create any problems as they are mostly recorded information that would not change.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, they do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * They are comprehensive, easy to follow and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No errors found.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the organization of the content makes sense but as mentioned above, maybe they can be further broken down to provide framework to elaborate upon.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

- N/A as it appears that it is still work in progress.


 * 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?
 * Not generally the entire literature on the subject. It appears that it is more like a very brief overview of the subject. It does get the idea across of what LGA Architectural Partners are known for.
 * 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?
 * No, all the headings seem useful and applicable.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, it links to discoverable Canadian Architect and Globe and Mail and etc.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * N/A
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The conciseness and the fact that a reader can very quickly fly through the overview as it is pretty comprehensive to read.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Keeping the same framework and general overviews, some of the sections and its general descriptions can be further elaborated with more sub-headings and display of information.