User:DavidKing407/The Four Apostles/Compact Streamer 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? (DavidKing407)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:DavidKing407/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes. Specifically some historical information has been moved to make the lead more about Dürer's connection to the painting.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it is simple, clear and to the point.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not quite. It covers some, but not all of the important sections to be talked about in the piece. I would recommend at least a small, passing reference to each of the topics.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes. It mentions that the painting was a donation from Dürer himself and it was one of the last paintings Dürer ever made. I recommend moving this information into the "Historical Context" section, or perhaps create a subheading titled, "The Painting."
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overly detailed? Maybe. It could certainly be more concise. David, if you want me to go over the lead again once it's revised, let me know! I'd be happy to help you out. Drop me a note, or a message, or whatever on my user/talk page.

Lead evaluation
Not a bad lead, the difficult part is going to be including basic information that's important about the work while still having it reflect the rest of the points of your article. That's probably going to be accomplished by some rewrites, I'd say 7 or 8. I'd love to help out with that.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yeah, I think so. I'd prefer to see more information, and the information that is there further sub-divided into different paragraphs based on topic change, but this article is serviceable the way it is now. I'd also like to see more links to other Wikipedia pages in the "Historical Context" section.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The webpages are all from the last two decades or so. That said, the only source from a published journal is from 1967, "Durer's ‘Four Apostles’ and the Dedication as a Form of Renaissance Art Patronage" by Carl C. Christensen. I'd recommend at least two more articles pulled from databases.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I'm weary of trusting the interpretations of Cory Hartman, of http://coryhartman.blogspot.com/2009/12/four-apostles-part-2.html. I do value and appreciate Hartman's insights, I just question the validity of his credentials. I'd be more at-ease if he was a professor of art history or had an art history doctorate, or was published on websites like Artway.eu. Perhaps until those credentials are provided, Hartman's interpretations should remain off of this article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Not quite. I do believe there is potential for discussion of underrepresented peoples, perhaps whoever was meant to view this portrait, or who sold it to Maximilian I under threat, or perhaps whoever's message was being suppressed by Maximilian I's censorship of the inscriptions.

Content evaluation
I would like to see more information from accredited academic sources in this article. The information present is informative, but also needs to be reorganized.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content is neutral, but lacks clarity.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I am unclear what the significance of the Reformation was in relation to this article - maybe some brief context of the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Church's sponsorship of art during this time could be a heading?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I'd like to see who exactly Maximilian I was suppressing when he removed the inscription, and what he would have gained from doing so.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Tone and balance evaluation
The neutrality of this piece is fine, it would however, benefit from more information.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * New information, yes. Though I have earlier mentioned my skepticism of certain sources and would like to see old information corroborated.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes. Unfortunately the information on these pieces can be scant.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Current enough, besides the published journal from 1967.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * For one source it's not possible to tell. The rest are written by white men, and one white woman. It might be pertinent to examine the lives of Catholics and Protestants in the place surrounding the painting at this time.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All the links work.

Sources and references evaluation
As previously mentioned, this article needs more current information from scholarly journals.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It can be a bit difficult to understand the sentences at times.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None so far, it's just jumbled up and difficult to read.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I feel that the article would be more clear with additional headings or sub-headings.

Organization evaluation
This article is in need of re-wording. I recommend rewriting sentences with clarity being the primary goal. Here's an online reader website so you can hear your sentences read back to you: https://www.naturalreaders.com/online/.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, and a video too.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The second image that links to a video is a bit confusing: the picture should tell you it's a detail of one of the Apostle's heads. The video link is therefore, a bit weirdly placed.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I believe so. All images link back to either a wikimedia commons page, or wikiart.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * They are! It's quite pleasing to see the painting images and then the detail.

Images and media evaluation
Good work. Please keep the detail pictures and, if possible, add more detail images. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to use the detail image as a link to an exterior video though. May have to re-arrange or change that.

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?
 * I'd say the article is getting closer to completion. It's good work, it just has longer to go.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I think the content add more information to the historical context of the time, but the significance of that contexts needs to be elaborated on. Why is it important?
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * First of all, it needs more scholarly sources. Next, it needs more information regarding historical context. Then the information needs to be reorganized so that headers and sub-headers cover every topic and each sentence and paragraph has a clearly defined purpose. And then it to be re-written for clarity at the end. I can help with that.

Overall evaluation
Wikipedia articles are difficult to write. You pretty much have to invest yourself into an article and be able to explain why it's important to somebody, and that's not an easy task. It requires a whole lot of research, and it's much harder to accomplish alone. But I'm here to help! If you'd like to schedule a time for another meeting or a read-over, David, I'd be happy to give this article one. I was an English major before I switched to art, so making sentences "flow" well and editing for clarity is a skill I have. I'd like to help you out in any way I can.

It's not easy. It's really hard. But I'm here for you, and we can do this together.

To lift your spirits, here are two links featuring cute baby goats. Good luck out there.

https://tangarang.tumblr.com/post/169726409804/babyanimalgifs-just-kids-being-kids

https://roboticoperatingbud.tumblr.com/post/630015918985101312/everythingfox-via

Sincerely,

Chris Simons (Compact_Streamer)