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): HarrisonGale84
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:HarrisonGale84/Pierre Cholenec

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? Yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Partially
• 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: The lead is good however I would maybe expand on what "administered" means when you mention that Cholenec "administered to First Nations." I would also add a brief amount about how he contributed to Tekakwitha's sainthood/hagiography.

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

Content evaluation: The content is good since it is descriptive but not too specific. I think it would benefit from more information about his work on Tekakwitha's sainthood and his work/life under the heading: "Later Years."

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: Your tone is very neutral throughout the article. I do not think that it should be changed.

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? Mostly
• Are the sources current? Yes, relative to the time period when Pierre Cholonec lived.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation: Your references/sources seem credible, but I think the article could benefit from more sources that are academic like your fourth reference (peer reviewed, academic journals).

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? Yes
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation: Overall, the structure is concise and well organized. I like how you created a subheading of his "Contribution to Tekakwitha's Canonization." The rest of the sections are a little sparse compared to the "Missionary" section. I think these other sections need a little more information. Regarding grammar, some words can be added in places to facilitate reading flow. Change "He attended Catholic schools" to He attended Catholic schools there. Change "a Jesuit colony now L'Ancienne-Lorette, Quebec" to: a Jesuit colony now known as L'Ancienne-Lorette, Quebec.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation: N/A

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?

New Article Evaluation: N/A

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? The content expands on topics that were only briefly talked about in the original article.
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation: Overall, I think you have made the article better especially with the information regarding Tekakwitha. This section could also use more information, maybe more excerpts from Cholenec's writing. I think you did a good job of introducing more sources. There are a couple place where you can improve the flow of the article, but it mostly reads well and has a neutral tone. Two sections before and after the "Missionary" section can use more information especially the one about his "Later years." Other than that, this is a good article.