User:Ibarrap/Enrique de la Mora/Dazed09 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ibarrap


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User: Ibarrap/Enrique de la Mora


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Enrique de la Mora

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Ibarrap! Here's my peer review,

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?- There does not seem to be an introduction/lead for the artist. I think you should add one before talking about his early life, it gives the reader a quick summary about the person and it helps give an understanding of what information you will have in the article.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?- Yes, architectural buildings that the artist created were added to the Wikipedia page. There is more description of a few of the architect's work as well as photos.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, the content is up-to-date with the work of this architect.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - The original article it talks about an important award that he received and I do not see any mention of it. I also saw it mentioned in some of the sources that you used, I think that is something important that you should add. Maybe even adding the building that he won the award for, that also seems like one of his more important buildings.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes, the overall tone is just factual, there is no biases or opinions in the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - Not at all, there is no attempt to persuading the reader over anything. The writing for this article makes sure to just address the the structure of the building and any important historical fact that it has.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? -It seems as the first source may not be a valid source, it states that Enrique de la Mora was born on November 19, 1907, and the other articles all seem to say he was born on June 16, 1907. If they got the guy's birthday wrong they may have gotten other information wrong as well. Also the fourth source is another Wikipedia page, and I do not think that is a reliable source to use when writing your own Wikipedia page, maybe look at the references to see the website that they received their information from instead. All the other sources are great!
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? - For the most part it does, there were some sites that needed a download or login-in requirement to get a hold of the information used but yes the sources matched the content it was cited under.
 * Are the sources current? - Yes they are current. There are interviews of the architect as well as relevant information about his works.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - All but one website worked for me, but that just may be my computer. It was the third source that did not work for me.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes the writing gets straight to the facts and very easy to understand.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - It does a great job in separating the architect's life and work, I would just suggest to write the introduction separate from his early life.

Images and Media

 * Are images well-captioned? - I would suggest putting the year it was finished next to the title of the work. I am not really sure if buildings are suppose to have the same sort of caption as an artwork, but I think at least putting the year next to the title would be nice.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - Yes, I like that you put the image right next to the paragraph that has the information about the work. It makes the page more appealing and gives a quick reference of what the reader is reading about.

Overall Impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - Yes, there is more information about the artist than the original article. It gives the reader a better understanding of what type of work that was made and why it was important. There seems like there can be more information added, but overall a great start.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - A great thing that was added was information about 3 of the buildings that Enrique has built.
 * How can the content added be improved? - I would suggest maybe adding a little more about his early life and his education. I would also add the award he won for one of his works and even adding that building with a photo and description. I would also add a list of the buildings that he made as well, just the name and location into another section, it may be a little time consuming since he has built about 70 buildings, but just do as many as you can.

Overall, I think you are doing a great job with the update on this article! It just needs a little bit of edit, but great job!

-Daisy Alarcon