User:Flipsy99/Salome (Titian)/Glo2022 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

 * Flipsy99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Flipsy99/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I believe the Lead is the original Lead and hasn't been changed.
 * 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 doesn't mention the Feminist Perspective, but I'm not sure if that necessarily has to be touched upon in the Lead anyway
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise while also providing the appropriate details to summarize the work and its production.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. I think the addition of the Biblical story behind the painting is extremely integral to better understand the work and its significance. Moreover, the addition of information regarding the artistic influence of Leonardo da Vinci, as well as the sub-sections titled "A Possible Love Story," "Severed Head as Self-Portrait," and "Feminist Perspective," all enrich this article and introduce new observations.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? As far as I can tell, the content seems up to date. In fact, it seems to bring more contemporary analyses and perspectives to the original article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, this article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. The edits made to this article specifically address the content gap in regards to women by including the "Feminist Perspective" section. Because women are historically underrepresented, this addition brings otherwise overlooked dimensions of academia to the original article

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is neutral. The additions are presented in an objective perspective and authors/scholars are clearly mentioned in the paragraphs to denote where the information comes from and give credibility to the statements.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think the "Feminist Perspective" section could benefit from being fleshed out a bit more. You mention that feminist scholars have recently analyzed the image with questions concerning Salome's age at the fore of the conversation, but you don't really explain the significance of this dialogue. Do feminists take issue with the depiction of such a young, seductive girl? Or do scholars accept the image as something derived from the Bible and therefore based on text rather than Titian's own artistic decisions?  The second paragraph in this section seems to tackle a few distinct ideas that could each be more comprehensible with greater explanation. (maybe just two extra sentences for each claim).
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. All of the added content seems objective.  This information offers new scholarly opinions or greater historical context but in a manner which lets the reader decide what they believe.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are several good references which lead me to believe all the new content is backed up by reliable sources of information. However, there aren't any in-text citations (you might just be adding them later).
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources seem to be thorough. I also found two articles by the same author (Simon Oakes) which may be relevant:
 * https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/30438547/ST6720118896.pdf?1358318674=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DTitians_Salome_and_its_Copies_Some_Errat.pdf&Expires=1604854102&Signature=Q1QLAalydz0XURKEQ-FVRvJwUTdnppl~2d6Ti-fcvYzQzG5W0ufCJ~6Qn63i27L2NFdmffKGdpDYqIA7l3Wq7JHXRFLvaGNFxCVF4RgCvHnhHTNITxaTkTpbzGbSR4LYALIlfu-9-0fzjeM7gdT3cW9CUp8UBLMjWR77LtTVUFS9LMygBJ8-JxITQnxB4qEn4KWL0rk2aQXwf4dm3oghfHDdp9iML2byityQjU2Wrlu46FHNVLrS~3QIJzGuxrmHoNRpE9X5XaeFYaOKPN1Ck0daQF5oFYNPpHfhTbZ94I7AqXMx7iUjwHAeT0KT2tcZQA5sMGIu1j0C2hqYqIDWCg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
 * https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA231997513&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=fulltext&issn=00036536&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=mlin_b_bumml
 * Are the sources current? Yes, most of the sources were published in the 2000s, with a few from the 1990s. Moreover, some of the content comes from websites, which I assumed are updated frequently.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There seem to be three female authors, with the rest being male. It's not the most diverse spectrum of authors, but art history as a field is still rather Western-dominated or Euro-centric.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I don't think there are any links yet. Some of the sources are books without links.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Some of the content is a little confusing, which I think is mostly because the piece involves a few characters and the identity of those characters is debated. At some points, the content switches its focus rather quickly from Salome, Herodias, and St. John to Judith and Holofernes.  This quick change makes the content a bit hard to follow. I struggled to disentangle the two narratives - Salome and St. John vs. Judith and Holofernes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few grammatical errors and some of the sentences are a bit confusing. For example, in the section "Biblical Story of Salome," the narrative isn't exactly chronological, which makes it difficult to follow.  John the Baptist's beheading is mentioned before the events which lead up to his beheading are explained.  This section would gain greater clarity if the middle and last paragraph were reworked.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I think the added content is well-organized and interesting!

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?

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? Yes. The added content has definitely improved the article. The additional information not only brings new scholarly perspectives to the article, but it also provides a more detailed backstory to the painting.  Moreover, the addition breaks up the article in a way which makes it more compelling and less overwhelming; there are more sub-sections which are of a shorter length.  It's easier to digest the content in this format as opposed to the original format which seems a bit like a big brain dump.  The additions to the article expand the study of the painting and weave in new dimensions which underscore just how complex and impressive the work is.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The added content transforms the original article into a more comprehensive study of Titian's Salome. It focuses on traditionally overlooked parts of the piece while also providing valuable details about the Biblical narrative Titian captured in his work.  The added content is particularly strong because it does not just confirm everything already stated, but actually complicates previous understandings of the painting.  The additions help more contemporary and unconventional theories about the painting gain greater visibility and prominence in public discourse.  Generally speaking, these additions serve to update and revive an article that was previously outdated and somewhat dull.
 * How can the content added be improved? The added content could be made a bit more concise and checked for grammatical errors. I think it would be nice if there were a section devoted entirely to a description of the painting.  That way, certain readers could go directly to that part of the article to find a detailed observation of the iconography of the work.