User:Adebbas/Vittore Carpaccio/Adebbas 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?
 * none
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Vittore Carpaccio

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is really focused on his works of art and where he got his artistic influence from. Although it includes an introductory sentence, the rest of the lead is kind of wordy and does not give the reader a broader picture of who Carpaccio was other than an artist. It only has a description of the artistic works and where he got his influence from, but it does not give a brief description of the bibliography section. It mentions his schooling but the rest of the article doesn't really mention that again. The lead is concise in its description of his background and life, but too overly detailed in his artistic influences. I would like to see more of a focus on him as a person and less as an artist.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content added is relatively up to date, but it would be nicer to see some articles or sources that are more current. The bulk of the content is relevant to the topic, but goes into extreme detail on his only as an artist. The content that is missing is more about his life and what he contributed to Venice other than his works of art.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral and there aren't any claims that seem heavily biased toward a particular position. There aren't any viewpoints that are underrepresented, but again, I would like to see a focus towards his life. The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources 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?

Sources and references evaluation
all content is backed up by a reliable source of information, and the sources seem thorough. However, there seems to be a large amount of linked information but relatively few references. Some references are pretty out of date.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
There is no content added.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


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

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?

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
Overall, this article could use some work. It really has a focus on Carpaccio's paintings more than it did about him as a person. A lot of the information focuses on describing the paintings, and now how or why Carpaccio decided to create them. I feel like those paragraphs could become their own Wikipedia article in and of itself. There is relatively little information about Carpaccio's life, and that is something that this article is lacking. It doesn't seem to focus on him, rather it focuses on what he created, which isn't the point of the article. The references are kind of outdated, and there are few of them. I think this article could also benefit from some new and current sources which can provide some more background information about Carpaccio's life and just about him in general. The article should have a more clear focus as well.