User:Flopez4/Chicago Board of Trade Building/Wgwilliams Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Flopez4


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flopez4/Chicago_Board_of_Trade_Building?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Chicago Board of Trade Building

Content
The content added provides readers with specific details about the Chicago Board of Trade Building. Clarifying details and context about development in terms of digital trading adds significantly to the "Renovation and 21st century" section. Flopez4 clearly defines that the purpose and style of the trading floor is changing with this renovation, and highlights why and how they're planning to compete. The article draft's author focuses less on the textural and physical elements of the building and focuses instead on the purpose of the changes. This adds a lot of character to the section and answers the question: "why?"

Other content that was added included details to the "Architectural design" of the 1930 building. This content may be best spread out between the aforementioned sections and the "Surroundings" section which highlights other buildings in the area. Context added by explaining the purpose of the limestone material and less colorful look is aiding readers on, once again, understanding why certain choices were made when designing the building. There is a small grammatical error to be reviewed in the last sentence when Flopez4 begins the penultimate sentence with "Which." This sentence can be begun with a "This" instead, or perhaps linking the two with a comma. Overall, the content added in both sections serves to answer questions of purpose for readers and does a great job doing so.

Tone and Balance
The tone throughout both additions is formal and neutral, which meets Wikipedia guidelines. There are no claims that lean towards any sort of bias. No "viewpoints" are over or underrepresented. The article does not persuade the reader of anything in particular, rather just focusing on answering questions about purpose.

Sources and References
All references are accessible by readers. The "Art Deco at Chicago’s 1933–1934 Century of Progress International Exposition" by Lisa Schrenk reference is particularly helpful and accurately backs up the claim made in the section about architecture. Reference 2, "Get out of the way" by Rob Dewey, doesn't back up the claim in quotations made in this sentence: The focus was no longer on the highest volume but rather "doing the best job on annual report experience". The first reference is helpful for readers and accurate as well.

Organization
All content is well-written, clear, and easy to read. Although there may be a grammatical issue, there are no other glaring issues in terms of organization. As a peer reviewer, I am slightly confused on where the "Additional changes to the building" additions are going to go. There are 2-3 sections where they may belong, but I think it is up to Flopez4 to really investigate as to where they might best fit. Also make sure to put the period inside the quotation marks, unless it's followed by citations.

Images and Media
The image that is to be added is: Photos of the faceless statue (Ceres) and the interior of the buildings to show more Art Deco features. As a peer reviewer, I can only infer that this image entails an image of the statue on the top of the 1930 building and additional pictures of the interior of that 1930 building. These photos will be well-captioned if the caption remains the same as the description I just read.

Overall Impressions
The changes made by Flopez4 do add to the overall quality of the article by answering a few purpose-based questions for readers. The strengths of the content added are that it answers specific questions and adds context. The changes may benefit from fixing a few grammatical errors, as well as adding more detail for readers. Flopez4 has completed some really interesting research/sourcing, and I think readers would benefit from some more of their writing! Great job :)