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

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 introductory sentence is clear, concise, and informative. The Lead gives a solid summary of the main points of the article. All topics introduced are later mentioned in the article. Overall, a strong introduction.

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 added is all relevant to the topic. I was unsure about the description under the statue. It lists the condition as "treatment needed" but this is not addressed in the main body. If this was expanded on in the article itself or with even just a sentence or two then the concept of statue treatment would make more sense. Overall, the information was well-rounded.

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 is neutral. The article does not seem biased or persuading.

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
All the links work well and are current. They are reliable secondary sources.

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 article is concise and easy to read. In the Description section, the second sentence would fit better into the History section since it explains how its a copy and the rest of the paragraph focuses on what it looks like.

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
Both pictures enhance the article and are laid out in an appealing way. The captions are good, although the condition label could be expanded upon as mentioned above. The images comply with copyright regulations.

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
The article meets the Notability requirements. There is a good variety within the resources listed. It links to a variety of other articles.

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
This article is a good first draft. It is easy to understand, unbiased, and provides good information on the topic.