User:Carleighrosenberg/Venus of Urbino/SuzuHigana 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? carleighrosenberg
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Carleighrosenberg/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * 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? it's quite hard to include a description like that in the lead... I think what you have is sufficient.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
Maybe add a brief sentence or two about how it is significant, since it seems like it was influenced and also has influenced other works of similar manner.

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? The Giorgione and Titian part is a little bit on that verge of not belonging, since the article is not about the artists, but the painting.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

Content evaluation
Everything that is added seems fairly relevant. It seems like in the "Inspiration" section there is some information that is in the original lead section. I'm not sure if you are planning on replacing the original lead with the new one, but make sure to check if there are repeats of information.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The interpretation section seems a little bit tricky, since there might be a lot of views and interpretations, and I think it's hard to capture all of that in one section.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I'm not exactly sure about which interpretations are more dominant, so I'm not sure how to answer this question.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Tone and balance evaluation
It's overall very good, although I think sentences like "He was a master Venetian painter during the Early Renaissance period." Can be changed to "He was considered considered..."

Also, including specific art historians like Charles Hope, I think it might be a bit better to summarize those points and not mention the historian. If one historian was mentioned, why not others? Questions like this may be asked, so it might best to not include specific names and their words line for line.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?yes
 * Are the sources current?yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? n/a
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
I don't see many issues with this section.

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? Yes

Organization evaluation
The historical background section jumps out to be a bit, since you have Commission before history of possession, it seems a little bit counter-chronological.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? I'm not sure if Assunta is useful in here
 * 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

Images and media evaluation
Consider which images are actually necessary - which images support the topic, which is the Venus of Urbino, not the artist themselves.

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?