User:HDDeCoste/Troy Laundry Building (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) HDDeCoste
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:HDDeCoste: Troy Laundry Building (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
It is a bit unclear if the added content is focusing on the history of the Troy Laundry building or if the new information is a revised lead. The first sentence appears to be an introductory sentence as it briefly explains what the building is, where it is located and who designed it which does a good job of describing the article's topic. The next sentence also discusses the design of the building which indicates that there will be a design major section, although there is currently no more information on the topic in the draftbox or main article at this point. If the first paragraph is indeed the lead, it is however very concise and explains the topic, although it does have some extra details about the design and architecture wish could be moved to a major section about the design.

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 new content is somewhat relevant as it briefly talks about the design in the first paragraph and and a bit about when the building was built. It also mentions that the original site for the owner's company was destroyed in a fire and implies that that is the reason this new building was created, however the details are not fully concrete and the topic should be explored more. It also mentions a bit about the architecture of the building such as the styles that influenced, but aside from mentions of its brickwork, windows and frames there is not much more detail about the design and could use further elaboration. The content is also not fully up to date as it only briefly mentions its beginning history in 1913 and more information is required to flesh the topic out more.

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 new content is neutral and isn't biased. As it briefly talks about the design and history of the building there are no major viewpoints to discuss in this context or any content that could persuade the reader to favor one side over the other.

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 content is backed up by a reliable secondary source and reflects on the topics of the building's design, history and could also be used to discuss the building's role as a historical landmark in Portland. Although there appears to be an error on the draftbox page, the source works fine on the main page. As the source is from 1988 there is not much information about the building's current state and would most likely require further research to find out what is happening with the building now. However it does contain a great deal of information about the interior and exterior of the building which is very useful when discussing the design of the building.

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 for the most part with no spelling or grammar errors, however the second paragraph is a bit awkward to read and could use some revision. Perhaps the first sentence could be broken up into to sentences. It could start out by stating that the building was built in 1913 as a part of the Troy Laundry company and in the next sentence explain that the company was first established in 1988 and that the original site was located in on the west side of the river but it was destroyed in a fire in 1894 and so they had to build a new building and that is why the current building exists today. This could be a nice segue into the history of the building as well as the design (perhaps the building was built with its specific materials to avoid what happened in the past).

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 were 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, the new content does provide the article with some new information but it does not feel more complete. In terms of strengths it is clear that the basic ideas for what can be expanded on are in place, such as the history and the design and HDDeCoste knows what they would like to further explore. In terms of what can be improved, these basic ideas just require some more details to flesh them out. The source for the main article could help to expand more on the design of the building and finding more sources about the building's history will flesh out that section as well and greatly improve the main article