User:Sbridge4/Chapel of the Holy Cross (Sedona, Arizona)/Jmbre21 Peer Review

General info

 * Sbridge4
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Chapel of the Holy Cross (Sedona, Arizona)

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 well done and is quite brief but it still provides a decent understanding of the church. Though it provides specific information on the parish that preforms services, not found in the text I think that it would be unnecessary since there is only so much to be discussed about the church's affiliations. The lead is very strong and is supported by the image to the right of it.

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 a great start for a new article which covers the basic history and architectural features of the church. The content flows together and there is no repetition or frivolous content. Well done. It would be wonderful to see this article expounded upon in the future as more information is made available.

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 perfectly neutral and lists historical facts or building procedures without using passionate or overly emotional language. The content provided simply informs in the audience and does an excellent job of providing a general idea of what the church is like.

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 sources are current for the most part and there is a good mix of both links and books. I would question the source that leads directly to the home page, but there are plenty of other sources provided that support the basic facts and history found on the website. I think that though the books are from the fifties

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 article adheres very well to Wikipedia standards and is visually appealing overall. There were no immediate grammatical errors that I could find and the two sections provided were organized in a logical way, first chronological, and then stylistically.

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 images within the article provide an excellent visual of the exterior and a bit of the interior, however I think it would be a good idea to include some small captions explaining the view of the church within the image. mostly the interior shot, I would like to know what I was viewing there, if that was the alter space etc. Otherwise the images are very strong, support the article well and are visually pleasing. They are also within the Wikimedia commons which lets you know they apply to Wikipedia's standards.

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
This article had plenty of scholarship to support the Notability requirements though I am not sure if the list is exhaustive of all the available literature. However it is a great start for a new article. This article was very strong including plenty of links and it fits in seamlessly with other articles on Wikipedia.

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
Overall, this article was particularly professional in content, organization, and tone/ balance. From here the only thing I could see improving this article would be to add more captions with the pictures, add more sources as they become available in the future, and maybe add some content about the sculptor/ Parish of the church on Wikipedia to help with notability.