User:Michpec/Bacchus and Ariadne/Gleb may 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)- Michepec
 * This is an original article so I am basically giving suggestions on how you would incorporate the links you have posted in the sandbox to improve the article. It was hard to judge since this article was officially posted.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Bacchus and Ariadne

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the Lead has been updated to reflect the new content, all of the changes can be seen in view history.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead is very elaborate and presents all of the information that will be present in the article. Maybe add the correct transliteration for the pronunciation of the name.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the Lead represents the overall content of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * No, the lead is concise and provides the readers with all of the crucial information and overview of what is going to be present in the article. Great job on it!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content of the first paragraph of the description sections seems to have a lot about what the painting is about, it is very extensive and portrays the overall story behind the painting very well. The content of the second paragraph of this section, however, seems to have a purpose of the description of the technique. Not a lot about it is discussed in this paragraph. My suggestion would be to find a viable source and overviews the general and detailed features of the painting as it should be the main focus of this section. All of the topics are very relevant but this one is just not elaborated on.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * All of the sources used in this section seem to be up to date, and are reliable
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not sure about the pigment analysis sentence ties into the description section. Maybe mention what pigments are used and where the viewers can see them on the painting?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, the article focuses solely on the painting, the story behind it, its execution and relevance in the contemporary world. Great job with keeping it specific!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The information provided in this article is very factual and does not undertake any specific tones or sides. Great job!
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No such claims noticed
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Everything is presented in an equal manner
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content presented is very neutral and does not favor any sides.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Great job on referencing sources for th Description part! The restoration section though has only one source cited in the very end. I am not sure if this reflects the fact that the whole paragraph is based on one source. But maybe site the source in a way that indicates pages from which the information was taken and reference specific points in the paragraph, so the reader can see which part of the source you took it from. Since it a National gallery bulletin, maybe try to indicate if there supplementary information present there.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are very relevant and are addressed from actual art historians and critics and a National Gallery too. Great job finding these!
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are current except for source number 4, wasn't sure what it was and how to get to that, since it said that we website is deleted.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalised individuals where possible?
 * The authors for some sources are unavailable but the ones that are available seem not to be marginalised.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * As mentioned early the fourth one does not work but the others do work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content presented is very organized. The Lead presents a good general overview, the Description section starts off from talking about the story behind the the painting, then shifts to how it was executed and then into the pigment analysis (we as mentioned above should be elaborated on). Restoration section can be divide into two paragraphs just to talk separately about the critics view but now necessary, just a suggestion. Other paintings are presented concisely, however maybe it would be a good idea to integrate it a sub-section for some other section as it is a little short. References to media may look better if done in bullet points.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I feel like there is a little bit of redundancy present when talked about "varnish" but other than that everything looks coherent and grammatically correct.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, it is

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Only one title image is presented. Maybe include the image of the artist or other paintings with the same theme.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The main image is well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The main imagine does adhere to wikipedia copyright regulation, however no other images are present, so hard to judge.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A, add more images.

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?
 * This is a very well written and organized article, except I feel like it was a little bit short. However, the information presented in the article is very relevant but can be elaborated on
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * N/A yet
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * N/A yet