User:Jgriffin094/Waldschmidt Hall/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? Jgriffin094
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Waldschmidt Hall

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 is concise and well written. In the second sentence, the Willamette River is mentioned but does not appear in the body of the article. Overall, it transitions from past to present well.

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 is relevant to the topic, with all details pertaining to the building itself or the organizations that owned it. The sentence about the apparent drowning could use a bit more context or else be moved into its own paragraph. As it is, it is a bit abrupt and does not seem connected to the rest of the concepts in that section.

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 and balanced. There is a lot of attention on the ownership of the building, at least compared to the architecture, the other major topic. On that note, in the paragraph about the 150th ceremony, in the History section, there is a lot of information about the ceremony itself. Since the building was only a small part of the ceremony, it is unnecessary detail. Overall, there is lots of good, balanced information about the topic.

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 comes from a variety of reliable secondary sources. Most of the sources work, the second one requires a sign in to view. The sources are current.

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. The two sections of the main article make sense are are clearly organized. In the History section, the third main paragraph diverts into the specific renovations made. Since the Details section spends more time explaining the building's architectural details, it would make sense to move the specific details there. The beginning and end of the paragraph explains the historical significance of these renovations and makes sense for the History section. Overall, the article is clearly presented and easy to read.

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
The pictures are well placed and add to the article. Both photos are well labeled, although it is unclear what their sources are.

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 has many secondary sources that are independent of the subject. It provides a few connections to other articles that will help it be 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
This is a well-written, detailed article about the building. It balances the topics of the architectural features as well as the people who ran it well.