User:Francesca.F22/Eva Matsuzaki/Athreshold 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)
 * Francesca.F22
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Eva Matsuzaki

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 sentence provides abundant information, satisfies, and exceeds the overall expectation of the subject. It provides an overall person make up along with her career path. Every heading begins with a chronological and progressive order, thus, creating a fluid read. Francesca.F22 has successfully categorized the contents in their respective headings.

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 relevant to Eva Matsuzaki (Architect). Some of the references used are up to date, and majority of them are from publications.

Some improvements would have to include a design philosophy of the architect, the driving forces behind her decisions, and any publications written. Did Eva face gender inequality in the AEC industry as a woman starting a career in a male dominated era?

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
Dry as Wikipedia should be. The content is informative without a bias other than the notability that comes from the sources and her rightful achievements. The tone remains factual without opinions or suggestions.

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 sources used are from secondary publications and not journal or news articles, thus unbiased and neutral. The links of online articles all work, and books are legitimate.

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
There is an orderly chronological order to the content, ranging from personal to their impacts to the architecture community at large. Early life to Architectural Project follows a timeline along with the inner life to the greater contributions. The content is easy to follow, concise, and articulate. This comes with proper sentence structure and correct spelling.

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
The images chosen apply to the project they reference. Majority of the notable projects have an image associated with them as an overall exterior perspective. They adhere to Wikipedia's copyright since they are originally from Wikipedia and not user uploaded.

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?

New Article Evaluation
The article provides significant perspective of Eva Matsuzaki, as a new article with a strong list of references, future improvements and additions will be smooth.

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
Francesca.F22's coverage on Eva Matsuzaki is informative and an easy read. It provides abundant facts with little filler words. The content is coherent per heading and follow a logical organization. The content can improve from an infobox that summarizes every heading, some coverage on the hardships as a woman in the AEC industry, and architectural philosophy towards design.

Summary:

The lead sentence provides abundant information, satisfies, and exceeds the overall expectation of the subject. It provides an overall person make up along with her career path. Every heading begins with a chronological and progressive order, thus, creating a fluid read. Francesca.F22 has successfully categorized the contents in their respective headings.

The content is relevant to Eva Matsuzaki (Architect). Some of the references used are up to date, and majority of them are from publications.

Some improvements would have to include a design philosophy of the architect, the driving forces behind her decisions, and any publications written. Did Eva face gender inequality in the AEC industry as a woman starting a career in a male dominated era?

Dry as Wikipedia should be. The content is informative without a bias other than the notability that comes from the sources and her rightful achievements. The tone remains factual without opinions or suggestions.

The sources used are from secondary publications and not journal or news articles, thus unbiased and neutral. The links of online articles all work, and books are legitimate.

There is an orderly chronological order to the content, ranging from personal to their impacts to the architecture community at large. Early life to Architectural Project follows a timeline along with the inner life to the greater contributions. The content is easy to follow, concise, and articulate. This comes with proper sentence structure and correct spelling.

The article provides significant perspective of Eva Matsuzaki, as a new article with a strong list of references, future improvements and additions will be smooth.

~