User:Guineptree/Tullio Lombardo/Guineptree 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? No one's been assigned this article
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Tullio Lombardo

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 topic sentence of the Lead does describe the topic of the article fairly well. Though the Lead is concise, it includes a lot of information that's not included in the article, i.e Monument to Doge Andrea Vendramin. The only section that is in the article is not mentioned in the Lead at all. The Lead mentions the Monument to Doge Pietro Mocenigo, the Monument to Doge Andrea Vendramin and the funereal monument to Marco Cornaro and the frieze in the Cornaro Chapel. ====

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: The content of this article is relevant to the topic. The content of the article is the smashing and restoration of one of Lombardi's pieces: Adam. The information seems to be update; the sources are fairly recent (from 2014). There is a lot of content missing, i.e the upbringing and life of Lombardo and more information about some of his pieces. ====

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 tone of the content is overall neutral. No viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented. The information added is very factual and does not reflect any opinions. When the claim was made that restoring the sculpture helped to create a new model for conserving large sculptures, it was clearly stated that this was the opinion of the museum officials. It was not said in a way to persuade the reader in favour of the museum official, it was simply stated. ====

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: Most of the information seems to be cited with a variety of sources. Some of the sources are more reliable than others. One of the sources appears to be a blog which is not a very reliable source since it hasn't been peer reviewed. The credibility of the author is also unknown. Some of his more reliable sources include an article from the New York Times. The sources do seem to be current, many are posted in 2014. However, not all of the links work. Two of the articles linked in the reference seem to have been deleted from their respective websites so those sources can't be verified. ====

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 does seem to be clear and concise. It is also fairly easy to read though some sentences can sometimes be lengthy and/or hard to follow i.e "The church of Santi Giovanni e Paolo contains the Monument to Doge Pietro Mocenigo, executed with his father and brother, and the Monument to Doge Andrea Vendramin, an evocation of a Roman triumphal arch encrusted with decorative figures." The content doesn't seem to be well-organized. The information spoken about in the Lead of the article doesn't seem to be a part of the content of the article. There is only one section. ====

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: There are quite a few images in the article that help to enhance the understanding of the topic to a certain extent. However, the images are all very random and not directly mentioned in the article. They are also laid out in a very visually appealing manner. I am assuming that they are all works of Lombardo. None of them have any captions either which does not help with explaining their context. The images seem to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. ====

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: Overall, I think this article is okay but has a lot of room for improvement. This article does a good job of maintaining a neutral tone throughout; everything is very factual. There are also a lot of appealing imagery that adds to the visual appeal of the article. Adding more about Lombardo's history, i.e his upbringing and how he became involved in artwork could be helpful. I think adding more about the pieces mentioned in the Lead would also improve the article. ====