User:Melendb/Alfonso I d'Este, Duke of Ferrara/Aperriello 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? MelendB
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Melendb/Alfonso I d'Este, Duke of Ferrara

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?

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?

While there is no additional content yet in this sandbox adding to the subject of Alfonso d'Este, I believe that additional content that you could try to focus on include his early life, as well as what occurred during his day-to-day life. I believe that this is a challenging article to make additions to given the fact that it is already a developed topic, but I believe that the published work could benefit from the addition of information that isn't just dense political history. If you are having trouble finding additional sources on Alfonso, I would also recommend looking for more contemporary works published on him, as well as restructuring some of the existing work; a lot of the sections were very dense and could benefit from a different organization.

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?

I think when you work, you could improve upon the existing article by focusing on its tone. The article provides a lot of information neutrally, but there were times when the contributors seemed like they were almost trying to make an argument to the reader that Alfonso was important (Example; "...something that could not have happened without Alfonso's patronage."). I believe this information could be presented in a more neutral way, rather than in a manner suggestive of a particular viewpoint.

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?

I believe that you could improve the sources of this article by including more academically reviewed works, as well as some primary sources on Alfonso. I was surprised as how few works were included in the reference section of the published article, given its length.

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?

The existent content of the article is well written and already organized into sections, but I believe that it could be further broken down into more concise sections or paragraphs, and could benefit from being more user friendly to the average person consulting wikipedia who did not have much background information on Italian Renaissance politicians.

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?

I think that was one of the more obvious places this article could have been improved. The inclusion of the visual family tree is wonderful for illustrating information, but I felt as though the published article lacked a certain amount of images, and was surprised by this given how many artists and works are mentioned.

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
I think that you may have a challenge ahead of you in making additions to the article given the fact that the published work is in a much more developed state than the one that I chose for this project, but I think that you will find the most success in improving it, rather than scouring for minute details about Alfonso not already covered. Good luck!