User:Y3Y4y/Mike Ford (Architect)/Nezow 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?  Y3Y4y
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Y3Y4y/Mike Ford (Architect)

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 is successful in that it immediately informs readers about the subject's current roles and positions held as of today, leaving the more detailed history leading up to the subject's career contributions to the section paragraphs. The lead may benefit from having one or two sentences summarizing each of the section paragraphs, just to provide a broad overview of the subject, without going into as much detail as the sections. In response to "Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?" — the lead mentions that Ford is a "keynote speaker", which the sections in the article do not continue to elaborate or substantiate. Perhaps it would be useful to cite a few examples of the events at which Ford was a keynote speaker, in the Career section.

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 is relevant. In response to "Is the content added up-to-date?" — this web article https://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/hip-hop-architect-michael-ford-joins-smithgroup_o. informs us that Ford's latest career move is his joining of SmithGroup's office in 2019 as an Architectural Associate, might be good to add that in, in the lead probably.

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
The tone of the content is neutral. With regards to balance, perhaps there is slightly more emphasis, based on the number of elaborating and substantiating sentences that follow, on the Hip-Hop Architecture Camp, than the other contribution about the design of the Bronx Hip Hop Museum. The forth reference added to the article, https://madison.com/news/local/q-a-michael-ford-is-designing-the-universal-hip-hop-museum/article_4dc06816-9e0d-5a49-b0f8-c0f65e5dd040.html, provides some information on the unique design process of the museum, the "design cyphers" which could potentially be included to the article to even out this imbalance. On the other hand, maybe this imbalance is alright as it is proportionally reflective of the greater news media coverage of Ford's Hip Hop Architecture Camp as his key contribution thus far?

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?

Organization evaluation
The content is clear, concise and easy to read. There is just one small grammatical error in the first sentence of the Career section — "aimed at both diversifying the architectural curriculum and increase (change to increasing) diversity in the field".

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?

New Article Evaluation
Yes, the article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. The list of sources provide a good coverage of the available literature on the subject.

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
The content clear, concise and reflective of the subject's various contributions to the field.