User:Hmcclenn/Abbey of Saint Genevieve/Clairebartlett2 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)
 * Hmcclenn
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Hmcclenn/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the student has done a good job adding relevant information.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introductory sentence is good, it is concise but could be more attention grabbing
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes good, relevant and interesting content is present.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all information is relevant to the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Pretty concise, possibly a little wordy.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all content is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all content seems to be current.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Nope, content all makes sense. Nothing is obviously missing. All information present is relevant.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes it appears to just state facts and not attempt to persuade.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Nope, all of the information appears to be neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, everything seems to be balanced.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Nope, content is neutral.

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?
 * Mostly clear and easy to read just not very attention grabbing. Some areas could possibly be written clearer.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, very well organized. Everything is in logical order.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images supplied.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No images supplied.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No images supplied

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?

DID NOT REVIEW A NEW ARTICLE

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, relevant and important information was added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Stronger information, reasoning for rebuilding. Answered The Who, what ,when ,where, and why's.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Some areas could be made more clearer or slightly more concise.

Overall evaluation
Overall this is really good! Some areas could use some fixing up, ie, making it clearer or more concise. But nothing too major. Good job!!