User:Didara M/Douglas Cardinal/Jkrulicki 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)
 * Didara M
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Didara M/sandbox

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
The lead remains the same as the existing article on the topic, however it is a clear and concise lead. It mentions his heritage, influences, and most notable works which clearly describes the rest of the article. The lead does not include a brief description of major sections, but this could easily be added on to the end, or perhaps in the middle of the lead as a nice transition to follow the chronological order of the article. All the information is relevant to the article and is covered and expanded upon in the rest of the article, making it a nice introduction.

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
The content is up to date and relevant to the topic, remaining so throughout the entire article. There is significantly more information in the draft than there was in the existing article which is great, however the sections "Architectural Style and Philosophy" and "Notable Projects" need to be expanded upon since there is no information there yet. Perhaps the writings section could also be combined with his awards in an "other achievements" section to keep it more consistent?

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
The content added is neutral and there are no biases present in the article as far as I could tell. I feel that his heritage is very represented, which is an important part of the article since it drove most of his work and writings. A section of his works would do well in relating his early life with his career, since these are lacking in this draft. The content added does not persuade the reader in any way, merely informs them of an account of his life and works, which is well done.

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
The new content has some links to other Wikipedia articles, however there need to be in-text citations added. The sources could also be expanded upon, however due to the library closure I have been having the same issue with my article (perhaps reviewing the "resources" presentation on D2L could help, as well as googling the architect or using his website as well if it isn't biased). All sources are current and links are accessible.

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
The information is very clear and easy to read. Under "Life" in the 1st paragraph, there is an apostrophe but no s at the end "These cultural ideas shaped Cardinal’ upbringing". The quote in the last sentence also seems a bit awkwardly placed (may need to specify who said this, his mother? It just said "her"). Under "Life" third paragraph "He studied there for two years but then his radical ideas" the then could be removed from the sentence to make it smoother. The rest of the article is well-written so far! The content is also well organized (see my comment above about potentially combining last 2 sections).

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
There are no images in the draft, however the images in the existing article are not spread out and very clustered making it very unappealing and not encouraging to read. They are properly captioned with the necessary information and adhere to the copyright regulations. They also do enhance understanding of the topic since they provide a visual example of his works.

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?

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
I think this article is on its way to being an excellent overview of Douglas Cardinal. With the proper photographs added and development of his works, this will fully cover the spectrum of information to understand his life and works. The content added has definitely improved the quality of the article since there is much more information on his early life as well as works outside of architecture. The strengths of the content added include speaking about his inspirations and reasoning behind his works while being concise and clear still. None of the new content is off-topic and adds to the quality of the article. The content could be improved with pictures and more elaboration on the information in his works and philosophy.