User:Juliadelosreyes/Raymond Moriyama/Shengyucai 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) -User:Juliadelosreyes
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Juliadelosreyes/Raymond Moriyama

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? -Lead section seems missing from the draft. The original lead is removed as well. Maybe it was merged into the "Early life and education" section? I think it would be a good idea to have a brief introduction as the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? -See comments above.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? -See comments above.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? -See comments above.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? -See comments above.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - I think it will be interesting to briefly include Raymond's influences on Canadain Architecture as he is such a prominent figure.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Yes. They are all well referenced.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Yes.
 * Are the sources current? - Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? -Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? -No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? -Yes.

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?

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? - Yes. Especially in the early life section, new sentences illustrated how some events impacted Ray's perspective on architecture.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - Good
 * How can the content added be improved? -I am wondering whether Career section could be re-structured in the form of paragraphs rather then "bullet points".