User:Selena48/Eliot Hall (Reed College)/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) : Selena48
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Eliot Hall (Reed College)

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? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is Concise

Lead evaluation
Good job on the lead, it is brief and gets right to the point. It gives a good overview of the topics covered in the article.

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

Content evaluation
The content is well organized and gives a good description of the interior and exterior of the building, the chapel, and the revisions done to the building. Everything seems up to date and the content predominantly is focused on the architectural features of the building and also gives an overview of it's history.

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, the content is an objective and unbiased description of the building and its history.

 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? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
No problems with the sources listed, they're all relevant and look reliable. It seems like the bulk of the article uses source 2 as a reference. It might be good to try to find a couple more sources if possible (but I understand finding reliable sources covering specific details of these historic buildings can be difficult!).

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? None that I could find
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
As I said before the content is well organized, It includes a concise lead paragraph and the rest of the article is divided into sections focused on the features of the building, the building's chapel and the remodeling which has been done on the building.

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.

(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, much more!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Comprehensive and focused overview of the building.
 * How can the content added be improved? More sources and less direct quotations.

Overall evaluation
Overall good work! The only improvements I can think of would be to find more sources to incorporate a more diverse range of information into the article and to use less direct quotations. There were quite a few direct quotations in this article and in the wikipedia training they were pretty strict about limiting direct quotations (even if you cite the source you still should put the information in your own words). Overall I think this article is off to a great start.