User:Gleb may/Domenico Campagnola/Glak12 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? Gleb may
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Domenico Campagnola

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 lead is very brief and I think it functions as a decent introductory sentence (though it could be written better), it introduces the articles topic. The lead, however, does not include a general outline of the topics that will be talked about in the essay. The lead is also too concise (unless this reflects what is known in the literature about Domenico Campagnola).

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
I think a lot of content can be added to this article. I am not sure, however, if the lack of content is representative of what is actually known about DC. I think some interesting things to research would be who was the audience of much of his art. Did he have a main patron? Where were his different pieces placed and were the used for a specific purpose? Did he have a common feature throughout his different art pieces that would enable to the viewer to identify a piece of DC's work?

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 language does not seem biased and it does not seem as if one viewpoint is overrepresented.

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
The sources are pretty outdated, I would definitely try to find some newer ones if possible. The references are also not very helpful, not really sure if you can trace them to provide better citations.

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 content can definitely be broken down into more subsections to increase the accessibility of the information and make the article easier to read. There are also some grammatical errors and unclear writing in the main content that would be really helpful if you could fix.

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 images don't seem to have connection to the content that is addressed in the article, so at the moment the images are somewhat a distraction. It would be beneficial if you could either connect the images to the content or if that isn't beneficial, then remove them. Are there any paintings of him (I know that is probably hard)?

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?

Overall evaluation
I definitely think one of the main improvements needed on this article is reorganization. There seems to be a lot of information through at the reader in one dense paragraph/section. Especially for someone who does not know anything about DC (aka Me), this was pretty hard to read. I think breaking it up into smaller subsections would be very helpful and make the information more accessible. More content about his style and patronage would also be very interesting and a great addition if you can find any.