User:Ngal7/Lodovico Dolce/Ngal7 Peer Review

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

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link) Lodovico Dolce
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead


 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * concise

Lead evaluation

Content


 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * no, but the descriptions of his work by genre could use a little more detail explaining the various books listed
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * yes

Content evaluation

Tone and Balance


 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no, but the relationship with Titian should be more elaborated on to maintain the fact that he served as Titian's PR as the article suggests
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no, good summary of his life and works

Tone and balance evaluation

Sources and References


 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * not all, but most; example: "public relations man" in lead
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes, thorough and scholarly sources
 * Are the sources current?
 * most are, but some are written in the 80s
 * when his birthday is discussed, perhaps quote a different, more current source
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Sources and references evaluation

Organization


 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes it is but it would be great to have a bit more information in the sections that describe the works, maybe a few sentences just to summarize what each section covers

Organization evaluation

Images and Media


 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes, well suited to his biography
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes, self-explanatory
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I think so, license confirmed at the time of image upload and says "no restrictions"
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes, in a practical way

Images and media evaluation

Checking the talk page


 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation

Overall impressions


 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * good information in article, good organization, needs to add slightly more detail
 * good format
 * no grammatical errors
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * concise, clear, mentions many works
 * clear biography
 * How can the article be improved?
 * more detail, also fix errors listed above
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * moderate, needs more development