User:Esbeals/Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari/Esbeals 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? NA
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Reviewing full original article: Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The Lead has not been updated by a peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The Lead does describe the article's topic; however, it is not concise. I feel that it would be beneficial if the lead was edited to be less elaborate. Some of the information should be moved to the content sections of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead includes a lot of information with regard to the design of the building. The Lead also does not include the date the Basilica was built or the architect or by whom it was commissioned.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The Lead currently functions as its own section of the article, with some information that is not in the content paragraphs.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The article's current content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content appears to be up to date; however there are no citations, so I don't know how old the articles sources are.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There does not appear to be much information missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article does not deal with and equity gap or relate to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The article's current content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, it appears that the viewpoints are objective so none are over or under represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it doesn't.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No information is cited in the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? NA
 * Are the sources current? NA
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? NA
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Most links work; however, the link to Lorenzo Bregno does not work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Currently the information is only organized into two paragraphs which makes it difficult to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There do not appear to be ay grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, I think that the organization need to be improved. Consider adding additional sections and redistributing information.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the images are useful to the article; however, I feel that more angle of different areas of the church could be useful.
 * Are images well-captioned? The images are not well captioned and are not cited.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The images are not cited.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the layout is visually appealing.

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? There are no sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? NA
 * 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? The layout of the article does appear to follow the layout of other articles, but there are no subheadings.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? No additional information has been added by a peer, but the current information is mainly sufficient.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The article does a good job or describing the different elements of the basilica.
 * How can the content added be improved? Everything needs to be cited and the article as a whole would benefit from being reorganized.