User:Cgdevlin/Santa Maria dei Miracoli, Venice/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)
 * I am not reviewing the work of one of my peers.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Santa Maria dei Miracoli, Venice

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Because none of my peers edited this page, I cannot comment on added content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the opening sentence is a clear overview of the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No. The Lead only has a single sentence, which introduces Santa Maria dei Miracoli as a church in Venice.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * If anything, the Lead is too short.

Lead evaluation
The Lead for the Wikipedia article on Santa Maria dei MIracoli is a single sentence that simply explains that the subject is a church in Venice. This Lead could be improved with more information about the significance of the church and a bit about its history.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, it mentions a restoration of the church that was completed at the end of the twentieth century.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no information that doesn't belong, but the article is missing some important components. For instance, its history, architecture, and interior art could all be expanded on.
 * 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 Wikipedia article about Maria dei MIracoli does not have any extraneous information, but it fails to address all of the important elements of the church. The section on the church's history is very short, and the reference to its unique architecture is a single sentence. The article could be improved by additional research in these areas, as well as in regards to its interior art.

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
The article has a neutral tone and does not make any arguments or attempt to persuade the reader to take a certain position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No. There is only one source cited in the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the one source that is cited is from 1997.
 * 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

Sources and references evaluation
The author only cites one source throughout the article. This source speaks to the restoration of the church in 1997. None of the information about the art, architecture, or history of the church is cited.

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, the order of the information is confusing as it is not chronological.

Organization evaluation
The author chose to put architecture and restoration in the same section, and this section focuses predominately on restoration. Because there is just one sentence on architecture, this heading seems misleading. Additionally, the subsequent section discusses the church's 15th century construction, and this jump backwards in time is confusing. I think the article could be improved by reorganizing the subheadings.

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?
 * No. The placement on the page of the picture of the interior is not the most visually appealing. I think it would look better if it was aligned to the right side.

Images and media evaluation
This article could be improved with more images of the church, both inside and outside.

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?
 * While I did not review one of my peers' articles, this article's content is not complete.\
 * What are the strengths of the content added
 * N/A
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * This article needs extensive work. It would be improved with an expanded Lead, additional content, and reorganized sections.

Overall evaluation
The Wikipedia page for Santa Maria dei MIracoli is incomplete in its content. The Lead does little to introduce the significance of the church, and the following article also fails to address the issue. Additionally, the article would benefit from more information about the architecture of the church, the art within the church, and the church's history.