User:Sbridge4/Chapel of the Holy Cross (Sedona, Arizona)/Lhawkin7 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? Sbridge4
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sbridge4/Chapel of the Holy Cross (Sedona, Arizona)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, there is a section dedicated to the architecture of the chapel.
 * 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?
 * No, it gives a very brief overview of what the chapel is.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is very concise, but maybe a little lacking.

Lead evaluation
Gets the point across, but could have more detail about the contents of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is spot-on.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, everything is where it should be.

Content evaluation
Content is well developed and makes sense.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, there is no bias.
 * 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
The content added is neutral and strictly informational.

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?
 * They are older, dating to when the chapel was built.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is easy to read and understand.
 * 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, it follows a clear path starting with the big picture idea of the church and moving inwards to smaller details.

Organization evaluation
This information is well organized.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * n/a
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * n/a

Images and media evaluation
No new media added, non applicable.

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 is not a new article, non applicable.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, it is refreshing to see a new section in the article about the architecture and structure of this chapel.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * This content is well organized and clear, and it contributes to viewer's knowledge of this chapel.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think it could be improved by the addition of media; for example, when describing the ramp visitors use to approach the chapel, a picture could be included to better show what is meant. I have visited this chapel in person and it's a little hard to describe the ramp, so a picture would help the audience.

Overall evaluation
This is a valuable addition to the article, and provides good information for viewers about the construction and architecture of this chapel.