User:Jgriffin094/Waldschmidt Hall/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) Jgriffino94
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jgriffin094/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
The lead does not appear to have been updated to reflect the new content, however it does appear that the new content has been updated to reflect the content already present in the lead. On the main page the lead has a clear introductory sentence that explains what the building is and where it is and includes brief descriptions on its history, design and renovations, all of which the write expands on in their draft. There is no information in the lead that isn't present in the article. Although the lead appears to be the size of a normal sized paragraph each sentence is short and to the point and is 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 added is relevant to the topic. It goes into more detail about the building's design, expands more on its history and who it was dedicated to and vastly expands on the building's renovation period. Even though it briefly talks about a celebration that was held when it was dedicated it does not feel out of place as it is relevant to how the building got its current name. The content appears to be up to date as not only does it talk about the design and history it also talks about the the renovation process the building had to endure after the school was reopened.

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 is neutral and isn't biased. There does not appear to be any viewpoints that are over or under represented even when discussing the dedication ceremony and bringing up that it was celebrate the 150th anniversary of congregation of the holy cross as it also mentions that it was also to celebrate the school's 90th anniversary. It doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in one way or 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 with reliable sources and reflect the information about the topic. While some of the topics are older they balance it out by having more recent sources such as from 2001 and 2008, but if possible I would see if there are potentially anymore recent sources as it could provide more detail on the building's current condition and if it required any more renovations after its initial ones from 2001. The sources also work

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 well written with no spelling or grammar errors. Each paragraph is concise and clearly explains and details the topic it discussing. However on the draftbox the topics appear to be out of order. The first talks about its design, while the second talks about it renaming, the third about its beginning and history while the fourth talks about its renovation which can make things about hard to follow and confusing when going from one paragraph to the next. I would consider reorganizing and including titles for each topic so as not to accidentally put something in the wrong section of the main article when the work is moved.

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
The content has improved the quality of the article and makes it feel more complete. In terms of strength, there is more detail given to the topics of the building's design and especially its history and renovation. In terms of what could be improved, I think the section on the ivy could be moved to the design aspect rather than in the history section of the main article, and I think you could go further when discussing the design of the building in general. There isn't much content when it comes to the appearance of the building and not much information about the Romanesque features of the building on the main page and I think you could expand on that more especially when you talk about the renovations, you could compare how much the design has changed from its Romanesque look to a more modern look, such as what the entrance looked liked before and after the renovation. You also mentioned that the weight of the ivy caused the brickwork to decay, but was it because of building's Romanesque features, such as were the materials for the bricks not compatible with the ivy? I think it could be an interesting topic to explore and would expand on the design and renovation parts of your draftbox.