User:Wgroneman/Sou Fujimoto/Burd Up 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? Wgroneman
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Sou Fujimoto

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?
 * It was put together with the intent to tell what was going to be discussed in the page, not overbearing but just the right amount.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes/No content from 2008 was added but it was necessary to include passages from 2019 as well.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No apparent ones
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * His career maybe? Its as if there is no examples of his work besides one line of building, where, and the date.
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, I'm not really sure how to answer this question due to the small amount of information on the page.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, I tested the [9]s

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, very
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No apparent errors
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, although there feels like there should be more

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, for how simple they are
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Not really, they are all at the bottom. They could be spread out or placed between each examples they represented

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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, considering the original article only was about a paragraph long and this adds the reasons to the building as well as more current examples.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The more relevant homes as well as the piece about his career
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Maybe add more pictures and a few of the key examples of his style of architecture.