Talk:Antonio Gherardi

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amandaaliz. Peer reviewers: Masonbissada, Sophiiquee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead
I do feel satisfied that I know the importance of Gherardi, but I think you could include some of his most famous works in the first paragraph of the lead (maybe even the first or second sentence). Nothing seems to be missing or redundant.

Structure
It appears you haven't yet broken the article up into sections yet, but I can see that you have a "history" or "early life" section ready to go. All you need to do is make the headers. Maybe you could add a section on the reception of his works? Nothing seems to be unnecessary or off-topic and the article is clearly written.

Balance/Neutrality
I think the phrase "extraordinarily inventive" could come off as a bit biased or subjective. Other than that, the article does not jump to conclusions or lean in one direction or opinion. It feels very neutral and historical.

Sourcing
This is the portion that needs the most work. I see a ton of links to other wiki pages (which is great) but I don't see any source list other than the exhibition and web gallery links. Make sure to source everything! Dates, facts etc.

Overall
The article does a good job of explaining who the artist is and what works he has created. The lead is very concise and summarizes the artist efficiently. Your biggest needs are sources and sections. I plan on linking to a ton of other wiki pages like you did. I love falling down wiki rabbit holes.

Peer Review - Sophie Liang
Lead: I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic. I think it would be better to include a life and career or background section before listing his work. Nothing else seems to be missing.

Structure: More sections can be added to do a break down of the topic. You can add talk a little bit about the history and how his work has made an impact in today's society. Other than that, everything seems to be clearly written.

Balance/Neutrality: I agree with Mason. I think "extraordinarily inventive" can be seen as biased. Everything else seems balanced and neutral.

Sources: The article needs sourcing and citation.

Overall: The article does a very good job introducing the topic and his work. It is clearly written and written from a neutral point of view. The biggest and most important thing that needs work is the sourcing. I plan to add an "external links" section to my topic.

Sophiiquee (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)