User:Clarracuente/San Zaccaria, Venice/Clarracuente Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Not assigned, review of original article.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:San Zaccaria, Venice

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? n/a
 * 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?                                   ---  The Lead in this article briefly gives information about the church, but does not introduce any of the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I feel like the lead in this article could have had slightly more information to give a better understanding what the reader would be seeing, its very brief.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? n/a
 * Is the content added up-to-date? n/a
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There could be information about what went on in the church, or more about its relevance in history.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?n/a
 * 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?n/a

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?n/a
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? no.
 * Are the sources current? yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? no, there are around 2 or 3 sources, not many opportunities for marginalized voices.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? n/a
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? n/a
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?n/a

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? slightly, there are some useful images of the church exterior and interior.
 * Are images well-captioned? could use some work.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes, I believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The article as a whole is pretty squished, but it is not horrible. The format could definitely be better, the layout overall.

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? There was no content added, but if there was content to be added I would suggest the structure of the church itself go into greater detail about the architecture and the importance of the placement, also maybe adding some references to other structures around it and how they worked in venetian society maybe?