User:JonKim44/KANVA Architecture/Mylar mylar 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? Jon Kim
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: KANVA Architecture

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 article appears to be new, so the lead was developed by my peer. It provides a clear introduction to the topic.

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 seems relevant to the topic and up to date. It would be nice to have more information on other KANVA buildings on Wikipedia in the future, but this article appears to capture some critical works and conform to the current course requirements for length. It is thought that the structure could be added to in the future or by other users. The article provides a useful introduction and basis.

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 seems neutral and does not seem to favour any particular position, positions are cited.

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 seem to be current and from reputable university, organization and magazine publication sites. The links are functional.

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 content is fairly concise and easy to read, but there were a couple of sentences at the time of reading that could be polished for increased smoothness and clarity. The sections are broken down clearly. Given the substantial detail on the two projects described, I wonder if it would make sense to add subheadings for the two projects discussed. It may be helpful to see the project names appear in the menu, should visitors to the page be interested in one of these two topics. Based on a re-visit on Sunday, it seems the noted items have all been very much improved.

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 were no images included at the time of review.

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
It seems the article meets Wiki's notability requirements, because there appears to be a number of citations from which the information was pulled. There are more than 3 reliable sources. The sources are not extensive, but this is likely a reflection of language barrier for certain local or regional articles given the firm operates in Quebec. It appears to follow conventions for architectural examples, though the "excellent" examples provided by the instructor were much longer articles than the assigned length. As such, the text looks like a strong start.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
There appears to have not been an article on KANVA Architecture prior to Jon's work, so the overview and summary provided is valuable. It seems to focus on the firm's holistic design approach and priorities. The awards section shows that they have been recognized for this approach and the projects section provides two examples. The area that is felt to require the most work is polishing the clarity and flow of sentences (it seems on Sunday that this has been addressed).