User:Catherinewang24/Saucier + Perrotte/Aghafoori 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? Catherinewang24
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Catherinewang24/Saucier + Perrotte

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, but could be more elaborated on the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I believe it could be just a bit more detailed.

Lead evaluation
''Overall, the lead was concisely written and formatted correctly. Just one or two more sentences could be added to make the lead reflect the article's detailed content better.''

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
The content is relevant and up-to-date and the amount of detail in all sections is great.

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
''I believe that the content was presented in a professional and neutral matter. Overall wonderfully written.''

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 sources and references included are great and help in backing up the accuracy of the content. The title for the references section needs to be added in.''

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 article is very organized and split up into several sections making it much easier to look for specific content.

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?

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, except for the listing of architecture awards.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

New Article Evaluation
''This article meets all requirements and includes a great amount of information on this topic. It follows the patterns of other architecture related Wikipedia articles.''

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? I believe that the content added is unbiased and written thoroughly!
 * How can the content added be improved? With the inclusion of images, the article will be complete and will not need to be improved any further.

Overall evaluation
''Overall, this article was written with great detail and presented valuable information about the office. The attention to detail is evident in all sections and provides readers with concise information on the topic. Great work!''