User:Brosano/Patkau Architects/Dlwldud715 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? (Brosano)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Brosano/Patkau Architects

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? consise

Lead evaluation
There's a clear overview on where this firm is based, what they do, and what they were recognized for. Interesting facts that intrigue the reader. Easy to read and understand.

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 easy to understand with concise but detailed information.

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 overall tone was pretty neutral and informative.

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
Few of the links I've checked seems to be working fine. The citation is labeled pretty thoroughly.

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? not that i could find.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Organization evaluation
The overall page is broken down into significant headings that are broken further into subheadings. It's easy to navigate around to find information and the content is well written to support each headings.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

Images and media evaluation
Images were added to enhance the understanding of each project. Maybe you can add it for the rest of the projects too. It was really helpful looking at an image are reading the project description. The images seem to be all good with copyright.

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? information is concise and easy to understand
 * How can the content added be improved? maybe add what year the big awards had been given for what project. It has an overview of how many projects won but doesn't describe much.

Overall evaluation
overall article is very concise and easy to understand. It was a little bit hard going back and forth comparing the existing published work and the recently added work to see what was added but the additives were critically thought out and valuable to the article. the infobox in the lead was very detailed and helped a lot with the overall picture of the article.