User:Cobler Rose/Equestrian statue of Joan of Arc (Portland, Oregon)/Selena48 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) Cobler Rose
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cobler Rose/sandbox

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
An updated lead has been drafted in the users sandbox in order to reflect the new information added, specifically regarding the statue's history and design. The first sentence is clear and easy to follow, as it explains what the statue is and where it is located. The lead also includes brief summaries of the major sections, as it briefly explains that statue's history and description which is the major section that follows. There is no information found in the lead that isn't briefly touched upon in the article as the article covers the topics of who donated the statue, who it was donated to and its design. The lead is overall concise and straight to the point and isn't long or overly worded

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 that was added is relevant to the topic as it expands on or touches upon topics already present in the actual article itself. the content is somewhat up to date up to date as not only does it talk about the statue's history but also talks about is current condition as of 2002 although I think they could go into more detail about if the statue's condition has changed, such as if it has improved or deteriorated as of 2020 if there is any information available. There is no content that doesn't not belong, however there is no information in the lead about the remodeling that it received as of 2002, which I believe should be touched upon briefly in order to reflect this section of the article and perhaps add a major section dedicated to the remodeling, much like how the main article contains a section on its condition, if the author intends to add this information regarding the remodel to the condition section of the main article I would would make a note of that in the sandbox. As a minor nitpick I think that a link could be added to the section about the Doughboys to their Wikipedia page, for those who read the article and might want to know information about the subject.

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 content added is neutral and do not appear to be biased in any way. When it come to viewpoints Cobler Rose added information that mentions how the tax conservation wouldn't allow the city of portland to pay for the granite base so the donors paid for it themselves, but does not go into further detail. I think that they could add a bit more information as to why this was the case. They also mention that the granite base caused 4000 dollars, so perhaps the price was an issue the tax conservation could not afford to give that much money, if possible I would look into this as I think more insight could provide more depth to the statue's history. However the added content does not attempt to persuade the reader to favor Henry Waldo Coe's position on the matter, it is simply a statement of interesting information that could be expanded upon more. The same goes for the doughboy section, as Cobler is not attempting to make the reader sympathize with the french and condemn the other party, but is simply explaining why the statue was chosen.

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
The new content is backed up by secondary sources and seem to reflect the information available on the topic. However most of the sources are from 1925, with the most recent source being from 2002, if at all possible I would search to see if there are any newer sources of information which could also provide more information on the statue's current condition as of 2020 as mentioned above. At this point it would appear the the citations have not officially been created as citation and are simply written in bold text rather than an actual citation, remember to change this before moving the information to the actual article.

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
For the most part the added content is well written. After the lead I would put a space between the title for the Description and History major section and its first paragraph as it was hard to tell on a first read that this was a new section. I caught a few spelling errors in the first bolded paragraph such as with the phrase "the city art commission" when I believe they meant "the city's art commission" and the chosen was misspelled as choosen in the second to last sentence of the paragraph. In terms of organization, the paragraphs generally reflect the major section, however I would also consider making the final paragraph a new section, since it mainly discuses the statue's restoration after parts of it have deteriorated over the years and it feels a bit out of place with the rest of the section

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
No new images have been added

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
overall I believe the added content will make the article more complete. For strengths the description and history section in the draftbox greatly expands upon the description, acquisition and dedication sections of the main article and definitely adds more depth to the statue's interesting history. In terms of what can be improved I believe that the final paragraph could be expanded upon more as it would be interesting to know the state of statue's current condition as of 2020 which I think would add a nice conclusion to the condition section on the main article. I also believe that certain parts of the history section could be expanded upon as well, such as more information regarding the statue's construction such as with the granite base and also about the bronze and copper used in the statue, such as going into more detail as to why bronze and copper were chosen as opposed to other materials.