User:Brittanyficaro/Danaë (Titian series)/Glak12 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) I am reviewing the existing Danae article.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Danaë (Titian series)

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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is overall good and it does provide a good introduction to the painting. Some things I would fix, however, is the fact that the last paragraph is never talked about again in the article (the influence of Titian's Danae on other artists). If no more information can be provided about this detail, then it should not be included in the lead. The lead also does not give a good explicit outline of the sections to come, its done in a more implicit way, but I think for a Wikipedia article it should be more direct and forth telling. I think the lead could be more concise and include less specific information. It talks about what features of the painting are retained in which versions, however, I don't think this should be something that is talked about in the lead.

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
I think a section about the influence of Titian's Danae on future artwork would be interesting, because that speaks to the magnitude of influence of this painting. A brief outline of the dates of production of the different versions would also be helpful, specifically of the more popular ones. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, but I think this could be accomplished by talking about the notion of rape and male control of the female body that is widely talked about in the painting. The article could also address a more analytical approach to the painting; right now it seems as if it just addresses the differences between the subjects of the paintings.

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 information presented is neutral and the tone does not seem to bias one perspective over another. The language does not imply any persuasive tactics imparted by the author; they are stating general information that is backed by multiple sources.

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
I cannot attest to whether or not this reflects the available literature of the topic, however, it does seem as if there are a wide range of secondary sources from a diverse background (museum articles, books, publications from the US, Netherlands and UK). One of the links, Kauffmann C.M., however does not work.

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 organization of the article could definitely be revised, the flow is not very helpful to the reader in my opinion. It seems like a lot more information could be included which I think adds to the seemingly disrupted organization of the article. It could definitely use a section on visual analysis, commissioners of the paintings, etc.

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?

Images and media evaluation
I think the images and used effectively in this article. It includes many and allows you to compare different versions of the painting side by side while reading about the comparison.

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
I think it was good because it has a lot of general information. But I definitely think it can be improved through reorganization, better flow, and some more content to fill in the gaps of visual analysis.