User:Myrepauls/Church of Our Lady, Bruges/Skylareades 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? (Myrepauls)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Myrepauls/Church of Our Lady, Bruges

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The article does not include a description of the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, there is information in the lead that is not included in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead is overall done very well. It is straight to the point and not drawn on. It includes key information that should be included in the lead section of the article. It does not introduce the following sections of the article, but I do not see that as a negative aspect.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I would suggest taking out words like "essentially" before introducing a fact.

Content evaluation
The content included is very reliable. This part was done very well.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, but it is cited from an additional source, so it is okay to include.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are not any viewpoints against the church.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Potentially, the article is persuading the reader to like the church. however, that impression is only gotten from a few sentences. It is mostly all neutral.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is slightly biased in the quote included. However, because it is quoted by a reliable source it is okay to include.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No. One of the links lead to a login page.

Sources and references evaluation
Sources are good but one link in particular leads to a login page. I had problems with mine being from the Wyoming Database and the link not working, so that may be the issue also.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
The organization was done very well. No suggestions for this area of the article.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media ---DID NOT ADD IMAGES


 * 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?

For New Articles Only
'''If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. --- NOT A NEW ARTICLE'''


 * 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? Yes. Before the new content was added there was hardly anything to the page. The article is more complete due to the new information added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strongest content that was added is the information regarding the detailed description of the Church and the techniques used and styles applied. Another strength is the links to other wiki pages for terms that may be less known.
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe add on to who Lodewijk van Gruuthuse was in addition to him being wealthy. What did he do?  Can you link to a wiki page he may have?

Overall evaluation
Overall the article was done very well. The improvements enhanced the article and its content. It seems as though Wikipedia will benefit from these additions to the page, especially since there was not much to begin with.