User:Nicohlii/MacKay-Lyons Sweetapple Architects/Tkmurray 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) Nicohlii
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nicohlii/MacKay-Lyons Sweetapple Architects

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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
Good

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? No

Content evaluation
Good

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, but maybe could be careful with words such as 'ambition ' and 'thrive' i.e in background paragraph and Sweetapple and MacKay-Lyons partnering together. Also in this paragraph in design approach, "Embedded in every MacKay-Lyons Sweetapple project, reflects their strong understanding of the landscape that it sits on. Their architecture silently interacts with is surroundings, yet speaks volumes to the world", or awards "MacKay-Lyons Sweetapple Architects have received numerous international, national and regional awards for their excellence in design."
 * 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, but also maybe be careful in design approach "Brian MacKay-Lyons says, "Half of the design of a house, for us, is getting to the front door, being taken through the landscape in a journey" - in which he means that much of the architecture they design, is just inspired by the landscape that it sits on, through creating and crafting an experience for the user that takes them through the environment and into the architecture."

I struggled with this in my design philosophy section, because it's difficult to express something that seems more abstract without making inferences or doing 'original research'. Maybe you could take out the 'in which he means', and just say, 'Much of the architecture...' so that it reads as being factual rather than inference?

Tone and balance evaluation
Good

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

Sources and references evaluation
Good

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

Organization evaluation
Good

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

New Article Evaluation
Good

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Very descriptive, complete account of events and projects
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe watch the tone as to not promote the practice

Overall evaluation
Good!!