User:Juliahutcherson/Laura (Giorgione)/Juliahutcherson 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? (provide username)
 * N/A no peer contributions. I am reviewing the published article only.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Laura (Giorgione)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * N/A nothing added. The lead does reflect the content in the rest of the article.
 * 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, the lead only gives some basic information about the painting.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise with a good (small) amount of detail.

Lead evaluation
The lead gives a nice introduction to the painting that prepares the reader for the rest of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Nothing new added. The content of the article is all relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * 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

Content evaluation
The content is all relevant to a reader/viewer's understanding of the painting. Some is less directly important, but I think the background knowledge that is offered is very helpful for a reader who may be unfamiliar with art history or the Venetian Renaissance. The details about Giorgione and his attribution for the work are also helpful in getting a bigger picture understanding of not only the painting but also its context.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes; this is an objective review without interpretation or opinion. It offers multiple explanations for different interpretations of aspects of the painting as well.
 * 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?
 * Nothing new added. All content is neutral

Tone and balance evaluation
This article does a good job of neutrally explaining the painting, its historical context, and the artist. I appreciate the thoroughness in offering different explanations for things that have been interpreted differently over the years and how nothing that is not obvious on the art is presented with certainty, but rather it is presented as suggestions for interpretation.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, citations and links to further information are used throughout.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, not a lot of sources are used but those referenced are thorough and trurtworthy.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, all links work

Sources and references evaluation
The article is thoroughly cited and provides appropriate, working, links to those sources and to further reading on related topics.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is easy to read and concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There is one sentence "Behind the young woman is a branch of laurel (Laurus), symbol of chastity, and carrying the nuptial veil." that read strangely to me, as it is unclear what is carrying the nuptial veil. Otherwise, the rest of the article looked good.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Mostly, yes. There is one place in which I thought the organization was a bit strange. In the description section, "Like Giorgione's other works...bearing a reliable date." I think belongs in the history section as it is unrelated to the description of the painting and makes more sense along with the explanation about the painting's long documentation. Perhaps a sentence could remain in the description about the inscription on the back because this does contribute to the image of the piece, but the information about Giorgione's frequent lack of signature and his accreditation is more about the history of the piece than the description.

Organization evaluation
The article is organized well in broad sections with ideas well-presented in proper categories, besides the one suggestion I make above.

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


 * 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

Images and media evaluation
The use of images in this article aids in a reader's understanding and is visually appealling.

For New Articles Only- N/A
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?
 * The article I think seems pretty complete as it not only describes the painting, but provides context and some history to help readers appreciate the painting's specific aspects more.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content thoroughly examines the painting and its historical context/ meaning.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The only thing I think might be useful that is not already included is some more information on the artist himself.

Overall evaluation
This article gives a good overview of the artwork with many helpful additional details presented in a well-organized way. It is thorough in its analysis but without subjective review of any aspect of the work itself or the artist or context. While there is always room to add more in depth information, this article is a good overview for an unfamiliar reader.