User:Patricia Diaz Basulto/RDH Architects/ChimentiS 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)
 * Patricia Diaz Basulto
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Patricia Diaz Basulto/RDH 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?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

 * Good overview of content that will be explained in further detail in the body of the text
 * Maybe consider discussing the scale of the firm briefly? How many people currently work there?
 * I think it's common practice on Wikipedia to bold your topic in the first few words of your lead? So your first words of "RDH Architects (RDHA)" should be bolded?

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?

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? Most of the time, see below
 * 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

 * All relevant sources with links that work
 * I've noticed that other articles have a Bibliography and a Notes section. So you might want to consider adding a bibliography/references section also
 * I think it's better to have too many footnotes than too little. For example in your lead, I would consider adding more in even if they are from the same source. Some of the articles I have been referencing have like 100 footnotes

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?

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

 * I would definitely try to find some images of their work when you get there. I know my topic was a bit more well known but I actually was successful in finding images on Wikipedia's database. I did have to search with more general words or use a nickname for the building but I would still give it a shot.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

 * Looks like you have a great understanding of the topic! I thought it flowed well and was very concise. I also appreciate all the links to other Wikipedia articles. Good luck with finishing it up! :))