User:Sbridge4/Chapel of the Holy Cross (Sedona, Arizona)/Tander69 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)
 * Sarah Bridges
 * 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?
 * The lead had no new content added
 * 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?
 * no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * the Lead is consistent and precise

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?
 * no

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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Sources were added to the Lead, but there are no new in-text citations to state where the information came from
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Sources do not contain links. From observation it appears that the sources are articles or from magazines.
 * Are the sources current?
 * the sources are from the 1956. The sources appear to be a little out data not because they are from the 1950's but because the building wasn't complete until 1957 accorrding to one section of the article and 1956 according to another section of the article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * there are no links

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I think the content added is well written and concise
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I do not see any
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

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?

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content added gave a better understanding of the building. It clearly labeled different materials
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * One strength is that it talks about where the inspiration for the building and form came from.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Adding in-text citation would improve the content of the article. Maybe some more recent content on the building. Like has the building needed any improvements or repairs since it was built.

Overall evaluation
What was added to the article overall was very good. The lack of in-text citations make the new parts of the article had to read.