User:Ryienblackwood/Saint Stephen's Episcopal Church (Forest, Virginia)/Bquinn428 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?
  • (Ryienblackwood)
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Ryienblackwood/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • No
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Too short
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • No
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No. Very little information to go by.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • Too concise

Lead evaluation

Lead is way too short and needs a lot more information.

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?
  • yes;
    • history section mentions restoration work - need to clarify what type of Preservation work was done: restoration, rehabilitation, etc.
      • history section needs to be rewritten because it closely matches the churches website description
    • Add embedded links
    • could use more information on the landscaping of the property and how it was styled/designed to enhance the property
    • Needs citations throughout

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

great overall

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • not all of it
• 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, still a work in progress
• 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?
  • no but it is a work in progress

Organization evaluation

Clearly a work in progress

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?

Images and media evaluation

need more images

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?
  • it definitely will
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • way more thorough than the original
• How can the content added be improved?
  • needs more citations

Overall evaluation

Great job overall but it needs to be structured into sections