User:Mtlevine/Innamorati/Aerinaldi13 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
This is a peer review for Mtlevine's work on the Innamorati article, linked here Innamorati

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 is fairly succinct and well put together. It has been edited to reflect the contributions of this editor, however it is missing some brief descriptions of article sections including the physicality and the appearance of the characters. Other than that lack, it is a well-put together lead.

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
The content added is up to date with the current findings on the lover characters, and all content added and present is relevant to the topic at hand, giving one a better idea of the roles the lovers served in Commedia performances.

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 added is neutral and is not attempting to persuade the reader any which way, simply giving information on how the Lovers were used in shows without saying that they should have been used one way or the other.

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
There are a variety of sources present on the topic that are all reliable, with the editor adding several reliable sources to the page. The sources appear to be current and accessible.

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 added is concise, clear, and helpful, and appears to have undergone some edits from its initial form in the sandbox to assist in that clarity.

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 article does include well-captioned, relevant, and accurate images. The editor appears to have removed some formerly inaccurate images and made the captions better.

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
N/A

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
The content added does make the article feel more complete, as mentioning the obstacles the Innamorati face is an important part of their function. In addition, the many grammatical and citation edits help to make the article clearer and more reliable. The primary place for improvement would be expanding the lead ever so slightly to mention the appearance and physicality of the characters. Otherwise, good work!