User:Cshahmooradian/PLANT Architect/Tkmurray 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) Cshahmooradian
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cshahmooradian/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Maybe; Due to their multidisciplinary background, PLANT Architect Inc. utilizes an integrative approach to create designs that responds to overlaps between these these areas of practice.
 * 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?
 * Maybe make reference to the types of work they do i.e. Architecture, landscape architecture, and art and instillation work, or name some of their most notable projects
 * 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
Good!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Maybe could provide some additional background on the firm or members of the firm, if possible. I.e. in the MacKay-Lyons Sweetapple Architects article, provides brief info on each member of the firm
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation
Good! Could also be helpful to include background information on the firm/its members, or any specifics about their design process/inspirations.

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
Good! Very neutral tone

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
Good!

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
Good

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


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

New Article Evaluation
Good

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?
 * Very thorough account of notable projects, with complete descriptions
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Possibly in diversifying the type of content added, i.e. adding content aside from relevant projects, if this is possible

Overall evaluation
Good