User:WanderingAlice/Immaculate Heart Catholic Church/Karathompson1 Peer Review

Peer review
Hi WanderingAlice, this is Kara from your capstone course.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? 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? It could include more topic information that will be later explained in detail, like the style.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? There is no other information in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The lead is well worded and concise but could probably also give an introduction to a few more topics like the building's style.

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? There is obviously a lot more of the content to add as it is only the introduction right now.

Content evaluation
The article needs to be completely posted on here.

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
Very neutral and informative

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

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 needs to be more sections and more content to the article.

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Well written and informative
 * How can the content added be improved? There just needs to be more content added

Overall evaluation
Great start