User:Glo2022/Portrait of Isabella d'Este (Titian)/Michpec 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? glo2022
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: there is no draft yet, this is just a review of the article!

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I cannot see any new content added
 * 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? not by name, but it has good background information
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? no

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes, everything has a purpose
 * Is the content added up-to-date? somewhat, most recent sources are from the early 2000s
 * 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? n/a

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? the content there now seems to be pretty neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? some of them are current, some are of the time
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I am not sure but probably not
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes they do

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I would probably try to switch the "identity of the sitter" and "description" sections. I feel like the description should come first

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


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

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 think some things that would make this article more complete would be a descriptions of why it was created, more about the medium/style, how it got to where it is today.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? n/a
 * How can the content added be improved? see above