User:WanderingAlice/Immaculate Heart 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) WanderingAlice
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:WanderingAlice/Immaculate Heart 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? No (Article doesn't have sections yet)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
I think the lead is off to a decent start, you probably want to include information about the architectural style of the church and the architect who designed it.

 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? The article just has a short lead paragraph.

Content evaluation
For the rest of the article I would recommend elaborating on the buildings history as well as describing its interior and exterior architectural features. In the lead you say it was originally built in Albina Oregon and then moved to Portland, this is very interesting and I think you should definitely elaborate on this in more detail in the body of the article.

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? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, article only contains one reference.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The reference looks good but the final article should have more than one reference.

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? There isn't enough content yet.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (no images/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? No,list only contains 1 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? There isn't enough content yet.


 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall this article just needs more content and more sources but you're off to a good start.