User:Jayanbuedu/Venetian Ghetto/Rwong17 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? Jayanbuedu
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jayanbuedu/Venetian Ghetto

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 was only lightly edited but provided an important statement that helps contribute to the overall article. The lead is very well written already but Jayanbuedu did not add much new content, which is understandable in that their added section had already been lightly glossed over without any in-depth text prior to their edits.

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 additional section that Jayanbuedu had done was a very important section, and I'm honestly surprised there wasn't already a history portion. The content was very relevant and very helpful in painting a picture of what the Venetian Ghetto was actually like. I especially appreciation the breakdown into different sections of time. I also feel that this content does deal with Wikipedia's equity gap, in that there is further representation of the Jewish population in Venice. Overall the content was very well done.

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 content seems to have no bias in either direction, and rather just states neutral facts. The content does of course highlight the struggles the Jewish population had gone through, though it's hard to claim this as bias since it was known how difficult of a time many Jewish people had for having a different religion. Overall, the content was as neutral as this standpoint could be and the writer did an excellent job.

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
All of the provided content is fairly reliable. They are all articles or journals, which makes them have a certain degree of credibility from their respective sources. The oldest article used by Jayanbuedu was only 4 years old, making them very current. All the links work and the citations are correct.

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
I really liked how well the content was organized. Breaking it down into major sections of time help with the structure of the content and they are all written concisely. There are no grammatical or spelling errors I noticed. Very well done!

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
This was a very well written addition to the Venetian Ghetto article! It was concise with little to no errors, and it was an important section that is vital to the topic. I'm glad that there was better representation of the struggling population of Jewish Venetians. The article was very professional and seems just as good as any other Wikipedia article!