User:Esbeals/Flora (Titian)/Vnicolet 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? (provide username)
  • Esbeals
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Flora (Titian)
  • I was unable to find the draft so I am reviewing the main article

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • unknown
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • yes, I think the lead contains the proper information for the topic
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • I am not sure this is needed for a painting as the two sections are history and description
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • I think the lead is well done

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?
  • I don't think there is any content that doesn't belong, but I think more can be added. Under the history section, maybe you can add information about the artist who made this piece. In addition to this, maybe information about why he made it or who he made it for would be helpful.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • It is neutral
• 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

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • I was unable to find the draft so there I can't see any new information
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • There aren't many sources, but the ones listed seem good.
• Are the sources current?
  • One of the sources is fairly old but the others are more current.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible
• 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?
  • Yes

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • There is an image of the painting
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Yes
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes

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?
  • Yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • It might be a good idea to add a few more sources with more detailed information
• 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?
  • Yes
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
  • Yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

I could not find a draft in your sandbox so I am peer reviewing the main article to see how it could be improved. I think splitting the article into the history of the painting and a description of the painting is a good idea. The content seems neutral which is good. There doesn't seem to be much you can add to the description, but I think you could definitely find more to add to the history. For example, maybe you can add information about the artist who made this piece. In addition to this, maybe information about why he made it or who he made it for would be helpful.