User:Studentnumberunknown/The Rebuilding Foundation/Studentnumberunknown Peer Review

Peer review
1.In a well-written summary, The article "The Rebuild Foundation" has the appropriate information in its first paragraph about what defines this non-profit. However, its definition says that they are dedicated to "transforming buildings and neighborhoods", and although I agree with the "transforming buildings" part, perhaps I'd rephrase the "transforming neighborhoods", because I think that it takes more than just transforming a few buildings to transform a neighborhood.

2.This article is well-written as it highlights the different buildings that the foundation has renovated and transformed. However, some information was omitted on the Stony Islands Art Bank. Although The Rebuild Foundation did in fact bought the Stony Islands Art Bank for $1, they omitted the catch to get that building at that price was to raise $3.7 million to renovate the building. Although the article does state the fact that Gates raised funding for the project by selling marble blocks, my critique comes more from the mere fact that they should note what the catch was to pay $1 for the building.

3.This article also highlights The Rebuild Foundation's awards, and programs that help those that are looking to get involved within the south side arts community and explore their creativity. The article mentions the different programs and classes that are offered to those looking to get involved in film and media.This article is grounded on really good sources while maintaining a neutral point of view that meets Wikipedia's criteria. Additionally, this article has all the necessary hyperlinks that pertain to necessary terms or individuals involved in this project.

4.Overall, this article provides all the pertinent details about "The Rebuild Foundation", its accolades, programs, and the proper information on its info box. Besides a couple of grammatical changes I made to this article, I would not change much. Although, it has a very good structure, perhaps it can be improved with recent or up-date news on the foundation and its works, as well as mentioning any upcoming renovating projects. Great job guys, well done! David MiottoDM (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) The Rebuild Foundation/User: Misspaulinac
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

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?

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?
 * 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?

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?

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?

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