User:Y3Y4y/Robert T. Coles/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/Robert T. Coles

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 clearly lists Coles's roles and main contributions during his lifetime. In response to "Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?" — the mention of his role as an "architect", "educator" and "activist" in the lead is not further elaborated or substantiated in the section paragraphs that follow. Would be useful to have a section on his career to do so. The fifth reference that you listed provides a rather comprehensive history of the firms and organizations Coles had worked at. The profile page that I did for Coles also seeks to demonstrate Coles's role of an activist, you can refer to that here for more information https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kZWAGg6DjSanewyzXlDHljnPRPELJGtLXiLHbF-_zJg/edit.

Also, saw the comment you added about how Coles is not officially listed in the NOMA website — maybe can bring this up to Kai to ask for advice on how to react to conflicting information from different sources.

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
Content is relevant. As mentioned in the lead evaluation, currently it is Coles's role as an architect, educator and activist that is missing/underrepresented in the section paragraphs so it would be good to add more information in those areas.

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
Tone is neutral and balanced.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
Sources are thorough, functioning and reliable.

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?

Overall evaluation
Article could be more complete with additional section paragraphs. All the biographies of Coles take us through his life and endeavors very intricately so the resolution and level of detail of this article is just a matter of how informative/detailed we intend for this stub to be.