User:KaylaSankovich/Church of Colònia Güell/Adyachuk 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? User:KaylaSankovich
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Church of Colònia Güell

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
Few changes have been done to the Lead. It does include the introductory sentence. However, the information in it might have been more precise in defining what the subject is. The section goes through most of the major points of the article, but it also contains some non-neutral information that is not explained: "...was a famous architect, and rightfully so". The reference link seems to be out of place, making the last piece of information lacking in sources.

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 added content is up-to-date. However, some contributions, like mentioning that the church was a place of worship "on a hill side", are self-evident and, thus, of little importance. The article lacks a general description of the building - the details of construction are scattered in-between point on history. As a result, the reader might struggle to obtain a clear picture of what the building looks like.

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 overall tone of the added content is neutral. There is one unexplained biased point in the Lead (see "Lead evaluation"). Other than that, the content added is not biased in favor of a particular point of view.

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 user made several additions of references to different sections. They come from reliable sources. However, adding direct links would have been beneficial as references are hard to navigate.

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 easy to read but contains a number of spelling and punctuation errors. In particular, the name of the architect is misspelled several times throughout the article, including a reference. There is a grammatical error in sentence structure in the first segment of the History section.

The organization of the article does work for its content.

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
I could not identify if any 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?

New Article Evaluation
---

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 added content mainly focused on small details, but they did expand on the major point of the content. The content might be improved by including a section with a general description of the building. Spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors should be fixed.