User:Cgdevlin/Gondola/Cgdevlin 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)
 * No one from our class.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Gondola

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Since none of my peers have updated the article, I am unable to speak to this.
 * 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. While the article has a major section for gondolas outside of Venice and gondolas in literature and history, these subjects are not touched upon in the Lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes. The lead talks about "traghetti," which are never mentioned again except as a caption to a picture. Other than that, everything mentioned in the Lead is elaborated on.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It verges on overly detailed. The author included some specific numbers to describe different ways that gondolas have been used, when I think they could have stuck with generalizing the overall trajectory. However, it is still a quick and easy read.

Lead evaluation
The Lead for the gondola Wikipedia page is a strong beginning to the article. The first sentence immediately informs the reader of the general idea of the topic, and the subsequent content provides a good overview of the use of gondolas. There are a few parts, however, that could be improved. Specifically, the Lead could reduce its use of exact statistics and pare down some of the information to make sure that it is a clear and concise opening.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the article takes the reader all the way to the current-day.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no content that does not belong, but I think that it would benefit from additional content regarding artistic portrayals of gondolas. The section on history and literature has just two examples, and the page does not have any references to visual art portrayals of gondolas, besides images of paintings on the side.
 * 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
The content that is presented is interesting and clearly written. However, I think the page would benefit from a deeper exploration of gondolas in art and literature. This section could help shed light on the importance of the gondola in creating a narrative about Venice's uniqueness.

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?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
This article reads very neutrally. It does not make an argument or try to convince the reader of a certain position.

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, except for overlooking writings about gondolas in art.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * As far as I can tell, the author pulled from a wide array of sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
This article has an extensive References section. While many of the reference materials are websites, magazines, and newspapers rather than academic sources, they all appear to be reliable sources nonetheless (respected newspapers, etc.).

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 content and writing style of this article is clear and well organized.

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

Images and media evaluation
A number of beautiful pictures, including both photos and paintings, enhance the article by providing a visual element.

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?
 * N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * N/A

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * N/A
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * N/A
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * As stated, I believe that an improved section on artistic representations of gondolas would benefit this article.

Overall evaluation
Because it was not edited by one of my peers, so I cannot comment on added content. However, I think that the gondola Wikipedia article is, overall, a well-written and interesting piece. While it would benefit from an improved art section, as it stands it is informative and clear.