User:Pdxpendable/St. Sharbel Catholic Church/Ephraim Romesberg 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) Pdxpendable
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Pdxpendable/St. Sharbel Catholic Church

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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The rest of the article is not developed much yet, most of the information is in the lead.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

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? Nothing that doesn't belong, just needs more content.

Content evaluation
This article is off to a good start, the lead gives a decent overview of the church and its history. The rest of the article simply needs more content, it would probably be good to elaborate on the churches architectural features and how they relate to the Gothic Revival style. You could also give more information on the different denominations that have used the church since it was built and perhaps include some history about the architect.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
No problems here.

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? The article currently only cites one source.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The NRHP inventory form looks like a good source, the best source I found for specific information on my building was a NRHP form as well. Just try to incorporate the other sources in your bibliography into the article as well.

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? The article just has a section on the Church's history, it should also have a section on its architectural features.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (no 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?

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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The final article should have more than one source.
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Good lead section with overview of the Church's history.
 * How can the content added be improved? Expand the history section and add a section about the Church's architectural features.

Overall evaluation
Good start, just needs to be expanded a bit.