User:Arthistory9/Portrait of Pope Paul III (Titian)/Arthistory9 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?  N/A 
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:  Portrait of Pope Paul III (Titian) 

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?  N/A 
 * 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?  NO 
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?  YES 
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?  CONCISE 

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 (missing) 
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?  NO 

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?  YES (underrepresented) 
 * 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?  NO 
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?  NO 
 * Are the sources current?  YES 
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?  NO 
 * 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?  NO 

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?  YES 
 * 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?
 * 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?  YES 
 * What are the strengths of the content added?  CLEAR/CONCISE 
 * How can the content added be improved?  OUTLINE THE ARTICLE/ADD MORE HEADINGS 

==== Overall evaluation: ' This is a great start! The lead is clear with a neutral tone, although it could use more information. Include headings to break down the article's information (like History, Description, Analysis, Sources, etc.). Also add 2-3 reliable secondary sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors and fill in any content gaps. ' ====