User:Jroger41/Equestrian statue of Louis XIV (Bernini)/Oak Moran 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

 * Work by Jroger41
 * Review of Equestrian statue of Louis XIV (Bernini)

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 contains a summary of all of the sections of the article. There is no additional information that is not in another section of the article. The introductory sentence does describe the articles topic, but could be rewritten or split into two sentences to be more concise. Overall, the Lead contains an appropriate amount of information.

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?

Content evaluation
Given this article is about an equestrian statue, the sections about Bernini's work on the facade of the Louvre and bust of Louis XIV seem out of place. This information may fit better in other Wikipedia articles. The bibliography contains a pleathora of sources, including some published quite recently.

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 of the article does not seem to be biased and does not attempt to persuade the reader. The content consistently has a neutral tone and balanced representation. The article does not contain any particular controversies.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The content is well-cited and the references contain three different sources. The bibliography contains a greater variety of sources, but these sources are not directly linked from the article with citations. After brief testing, the links in the references section do work.

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 of the article is generally easy to read. There are some sentences that seem overly long and thus harder to understand. I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors. The sections are clearly definied and are separated at logical points. There are not too many or too few sections for the amount of content presented.

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
The images in the article aid understanding and have useful captions. They all have an accepted copyright according to Wikipedia's regulations. The images are located next to the related article section. I think if would be helpful to have additional photos of the equestrian statue showing details and in different lighting.

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?

New Article Evaluation
Based on the edit history, this is not a new article.

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
Since the sandbox tool was not used to draft revisions to the article, I am having difficulty figuring out what particular information was added to the article during this semester. The article certainly contains a lot of information, has several different sources, and is written in a neutral and informative way. I think this article could be improved by relocating the information about the facade of the Louvre and bust of Louis XIV to respective wikipedia pages. I also think additional photos of the equestrian statue where it is easier to see key details would be a great addition.