User:Hmhaw/Marietta Robusti/Slen1432 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? Hmhaw
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Marietta Robusti

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? peer has not added anything in their sandbox
 * 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? no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? very concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? there is nothing added
 * Is the content added up-to-date? probably
 * 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? no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * 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? the current information is backed up by reliable sources
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes there are all different authors
 * Check a few links. Do they work? most of the sources are tangible books

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? yes, there are surprising amounts of background information on Marietta

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media; they did not


 * 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: there was nothing added


 * 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
The article is very well written and researched. There is a good balance between information on Marietta and her works. It makes sense that there is more information on her because she was not from the 1300 as some other figures are. Not really sure how this article can me improved unless there is more information about her work that is revealed.