Naturalization Records

Jennifer, you're a fast learner. You've captured almost all the essential elements. EE will rearrange things a bit for clarity. Below, I'm flagging with color the points addressed:

          1. "Pennsylvania, Eastern District Petitions for Naturalization, 1795-1931," digital images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-958F-3S4G?cc=1913395&wc=M6BH-DNP%3A197084501 : 11 Jul 2020) > 1929, Petitions, v. 363-364, nos.100750-101128 >  Images 684–686 of 1146 >  Frances (Wiedfeld) Furhmann, declaration of intention for naturalization no.105254 (3 Sep. 1926), petition for naturalization no.100975 (13 Jun. 1929), certificate of naturalization no. 3270259 (27 Nov. 1929); citing FamilySearch film 004112295, imaged from National Archives microfilm publication M1522, roll 355.

Explanations:

1. You used three layers: the original document, the database and provider ID, and the source-of-the-source data. However, the data in your first layer—the identification of the original document—is not complete enough to use as a standalone layer. It simply describes the images you found after you went to FamilySearch’s database and drilled down to the document. Readers of the citation have no idea where to find that document, aside from the fact that it’s part of a database online. Therefore, the database should be first identified.
2. After the title of the database in your draft, you have a semicolon. The use of the semicolon there tells the reader that the database is a separate layer from the website. Obviously, it isn't. The semicolon, when used, is a flag that you are shifting gears and describing something else. What you need there is a simple comma before the quotation mark.
3. Between the title of the database and the title of the website, a short field is used to say what type of database you are using. It’s a short descriptor of what you’ve just named. The actual image numbers don’t go there. They go in the path that is cited after the parenthetical publication data. Logically, it's that path that leads you to those image numbers, right?
4. Waypoints on the path should be separated with the greater-than ( >) symbol. That symbol is used because it tells the reader that we are drilling  from the largest menu level down to the next smallest menu level to the next smallest, etc. You'll notice that I removed the quotation marks you used around one of the path items. The > symbol alerts readers that we are citing a path and, logically, we cite the words of the path exactly because an altered path name would not be found by those who look for it at the website. Quote marks aren't needed around each path element to say that we are citing it exactly.
5. In identifying each document, you do not have to repeat "for naturalization" in your descriptions of all three documents. The first element in the citation tells us that you are citing naturalization records. Eliminating redundancy, when possible, helps to streamline long citations that are already making readers' eyes glaze over. Those two words might be retained for the final document for clarity to say what the "certificate" represents.
6. The FamilySearch film number needs to be in the “citing” layer, with an identification of whose film is being cited. Then you can say that it is imaged from the NA microfilm.

And, as a final bit of nitpicking, EE would capitalize the "P" and the "N" in the database title. For basic capitalization rules, see EE 2.22.

Postscript: I must be out of the office for the weekend. I'll check back Monday in case you have further questions.