User:Mmatisse/Sleeping Venus (Giorgione)/Mmatisse Peer Review

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

The article I'm peer reviewing is not one that has been assigned to a member of our class. Therefore, I'm reviewing the overall article with the applicable criteria from the questions bellow.

General info

 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Sleeping Venus (Giorgione)

Lead

 * The lead begins with a strong introductory sentence that describes the Sleeping Venus.
 * The lead provides a good introduction to what the rest of the article is about
 * The lead includes general information about the subject of the article such as where it's currently located, where it was made, what it was made of. It sets up a general understanding of the object so that the articles can flow more easily.
 * I think the Lead is pretty concise but it does have some excess information that's repeated and developed on further later in the article.

Content

 * The content of this article is relevant and seems to be up to date, although most sources are over ten years old.
 * I think that all the sections are relevant and they cover what I would assume to be on this kind of Wikipedia page.

Tone and Balance

 * The article has an overall neutral tone staying fairly unbiased.
 * There are multiple viewpoints that are introduced on the significance of the painting. For example, one historian argues that the painting is in itself an allegory of the island of Cyprus.
 * I feel that different viewpoints are introduced and not necessarily presented with counter-arguments. The addition of counter-arguments could bring in more viewpoints but it might also overwhelm the article.

Sources and References

 * All the content on the article appear to be be backed by reliable secondary sources.
 * I don't know if these sources necessarily reflect the most prominent literature on the topic since most of the sources are 15-20 years old, which means there is a lack of newer texts that could have been published on the subject in the last couple decades.
 * There are a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * I was able to access some of the sources online but a few I had to google separately to find since they didn't have a working link.

Organization

 * The content of the article is generally well written with good grammar and but I found one typo I believe.
 * The overall article is well organized by starting with the history of the piece before going into the controversies/critical reception of it.