User:Atian117/Gentile Bellini/Guineptree 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? Atian117
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Atian117/Gentile Bellini

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 has not been updated. However, I think that all the information that Alex is going to add is related to the Lead so there might not have to be much of a change to it except for ensuring that the information in the lead is cited with reliable sources. ====

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 is definitely relevant to the topic. The content seems to be primarily about Bellini's interactions with the east but also includes information about his life, all of which is relevant to the topic of Gentile Bellini. I don't think there's any content that is missing necessarily, however I do think some of the topics that are already there can be expounded on, i.e biography. For the biography, for example, it could be separated into sections such as early life, maturity, and final years. This is obviously dependent on how much information can be found on that area of the topic. ====

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. Though most of the added information follows the story of Gentile and his interaction with the Venetian senate, most of the information was portrayed in a very factual manner. There is one part that seems to be persuading the reader to think of Bellini as a very good man when it says, "like the modest and upright man he was." ====

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: The sources seem to be reliable. There are no links to be verified however, all of the sources appear to be published books that must have gone through the process of peer review. There do appear to be a variety of sources in his bibliography. ====

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: I think the content could be a bit more concise. There are also quite a few grammatical and spelling errors throughout the added content. The content isn't organized by topic, however it is organized by source which is a good way to start off. However, I do think organizing by content would be helpful in that it will make it easier to add to the article where necessary. ====

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 I think you have a lot of information to add to this article that are all from reliable sources so good job on that front. I think you did a fairly good job on maintaining a neutral tone there are few parts that seem biased in Bellini's favour so working on that could improve the article. I think you also did a really good job of finding a lot of relevant content from reliable sources. I think there are quite a few grammar and spelling errors to fix and the content could be a bit more organized and added to the article. However, overall, I think you did a very good job! ====