User:Jayanbuedu/Venetian Ghetto/SuzuHigana Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

Hey, it's Julia V. from class, in case you wondered who "SuzuHigana" is.

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? Yes
 * 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? Maybe add how it is today, since there is a section of it.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The part about the French army is not immediately clear.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Lead evaluation
Adequate, but would benefit from changing/adding the things I mentioned above.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? As far as the stuff that is added, it is fine. I believe this is still a working draft, so there will probably be things that are added later.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes

Content evaluation
What is added so far seems to be adequate.

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

Tone and balance evaluation
The writing tone is neutral, and the content that is added so far seems balanced.

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? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
This section seems fine.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The sentences express adequate content, but I think it would flow better if they had better transitions between them, or are linked together in a manner that makes it flow a bit better.
 * 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

Organization evaluation
The organization makes a lot of sense - it helps a lot to break down the history into chronological sections.

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


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

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?