User:Kolbie.Fung/D'arcy Jones/Hadley.milos 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? Kolbie.Fung
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kolbie.Fung/D'arcy Jones

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Could be densified more, and more brief - "D’arcy Jones Architects in tandem with Jones himself" sentence is a little confusing.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think it is a little overly detailed, a little bit wordy. Example: "Jones himself is an architect registration in the provinces of in BC, ..." could be "Jones is a registered architect in the provinces of British Columbia, ..." as well as the sentence "His emerging recognition has gained him respect from awards won..." could be shortened to "He has gained recognition from awards won..."

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?
 * N/A - good use of sources!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Mostly!
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * "the licensing process remains very strict" is a little bias I believe.
 * " DJA prides itself on delivering high quality design that challenge but also push traditional methods of construction." seems a little bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The paragraph in Early Life and Career that states "Professionally, Jones followed a path that was considered abnormal and non-traditional. " I think is a little overrepresented. You don't need to go into the licensing process of Canada - I think it would be better to state what he did. I think you can summarize his transition from academic studies to professional practice more, and then how he completed his internship requirements.
 * "To this day, Jones has gained respect through his most notable works and completed projects which fall largely under the typology of single residential housing." Could be summarized to "... completed projects, most commonly are single family housing projects."
 * " projects encompassing a broader typology but keeping in similar scale " i think is a little too architecturally-wordy. A non-architecture person may not understand this.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Remove the word "humble" from "he expanded his studio size to a humble 9 person team.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * It is a little architecturally-dominant with the choice of words. Not sure a layman person would be able to fully understand the content. World like "feasibility, traditional hierarchies, physical realization,
 * 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, lots of good information!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Talks about his personal life but mostly focuses of his professional career rather than personal life.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * It reads a little like an essay, I think if it is summarized a little more, and used some more basic terms that are more easily understandable.

Overall evaluation
Very good research :)