User:Esbeals/Flora (Titian)/Rwong17 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

* This is a review of the main article, my classmate doesn't have a draft of their article yet

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? N/A
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Flora (Titian)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The current lead is very sparse. It has only a single sentence that states what is in the article, which itself is very low in content. It could be improved with a brief description of the painting and perhaps expand slightly on the history, such as highlighting important points in its life.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
There is no added content since my classmate hadn't made their draft yet, but they could definitely add more to the history of the painting. It only touches upon the 16th and 18th centuries, so the gaps could be filled for the time between and the time up to the present.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is very neutral and doesn't seem to sway in any direction of bias. The description is very neutral and provides a good analysis of the painting, as well as drawing comparisons to other works by the same artist Titian.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
There are very few citations in the article. There are also no links with the citations, though this could be because their sources were not from an online source. The articles used are slightly outdated, the oldest from 2003 and the newest from 2008. Some parts of the description should be cited, such as statements as to what critics interpret the painting to represent.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
The history section could be better organized in a timeline, though this isn't a huge problem considering that there are only two notable dates that the author uses, 16th century and 18th century. However, the article is still well written and easy to read.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The only image is an image of the painting. It is well captioned and adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulation, though my classmate may want to consider adding images of different works by Titian, as there are comparisons made in the article which would be better understood with their respective paintings.

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?