User:Millidawson/Yale University Art Gallery/KaylaSankovich 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? Millidawson
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Yale University Art Gallery

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 of the article was not changed however, it seems to do a good job of leading into the rest of the actual factual sections of the article. It is clear and short to lead into the other sections. It also does not include a description of what the rest of the article will discuss, and seemed a bit biased in it's voice.

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 added to the page was pertinent to the article. It gives readers some more background information about the construction and planning of the building, while keeping neutral voice. There were several quotations used also. The information added was not previously used or mentioned in the article, and is up-to-date.

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
In the content added, the voice managed to stay neutral and non-biased. It allows the readers to see where the influence of the planning of the building came from, without feeling like they are choosing a side. It might have been nice to see a bit more information on how Kahn was commissioned to build this museum initially.

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 added were from books, and were reputable. The online sources used seem to work, except for some old sources that are dead links. The sources are all fairly current, and one of the sources was even written by the child of Kahn.

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 well organized. It would be nice to see the information split into just a few more subheadings, such as a 'Planning' subheading, or something of the like. I see no grammar or spelling errors in the article. The information is easy to read and understand.

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
Not applicable to this specific article.

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
not applicable

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
Overall, the content added to this article on Yale University Art Gallery was great information that was lost before. It is great to see contributions to an article so people know the history in the planning. I do wish there was a bit more content added to the page, such as how Kahn was commissioned to build and design this gallery. The sources were also great, especially the book written by Kahn's daughter herself.