IoneChandler

Welcome!

Hello, IoneChandler, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Donatellia Austin Peer Review

Lead The lead is a fairly strong with content start but lacks cohesion and some sentence structures are confusing. It offers overviews on the styles and why its an important church, which I found to be positive.

Sections These could have been re-arranged differently. I am not sure why the The Organ needs a section all by itself. But "Style" and "The Organ" could have been under a larger term that then divided into these smaller. This then could have allowed for elaborations in subsections such as "Decoration" or "Structure." I like the idea of having a commission and construction section of the article, I think it can offer some really specific knowledge and references, but I think the article could improve by adding a history section as well as an architecture section. Other sections to include are a Bibliography, to separate external links from other sources, and a "See Also" section for wikipedia pages that are related to this topic.

Content The tone is mostly neutral in tone. There are some instances where the students voice shows up in the article subtly or a couple of sentence structures could be changed for a higher quality article. In some instances there isn't well-documented different perspectives of the building, it is briefly mentioned but, again, not cohesively. There is some repetition, for example, that the building has been made from concrete is repeated several times in the article, including the lead, construction and style sections of the article.

References As mentioned above, separating Bibliography, See Also, and External links into their own sections on the article will clean it up. There are some issues with the cites and cited sources that aren't quite functional, but can be easily fixed. Otherwise there seems to be reliable sources used for the citations and other than the issues within the pages code seem to offer knowledge that has been peer reviewed in some way except for reference 5 and 7, which are not peer reviewed and unsure of their reliability as sources.

Overall There could have been more content added to the page and a bit more research done on the church and its monumental aspect as the first notable example of reinforced concrete. I think it is a decent start to a wikipedia page and has some valuable information on the page but would have liked to see more and a little more finesse in the pages editing. DonatelliaAustin (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)