User:Rshukla1/Basilica Palladiana/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) Rshukla1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Rshukla1/Basilica Palladiana

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 does contain some information that is presented further in the article, however, not all. It is relatively short and does not contain any information about the history of the building which in opinion is crucial. I believe it should be expanded and more background information about the building should be given in this section. Also, maybe add how the name is pronounced in Italian. Take a look at the wikipedia page of St. Mark's Basilica, it might be a good example that will give you some insight into what you should add.

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?

Content evaluation
It seems like the subtitles represent the general idea of what should be present in this article, however, description, conservation and restoration sections are pretty short and do not provide as deep insight as the history section. Maybe it should also be talked about in the scope of the surrounding area, or how the architecture of nearby buildings has affected the building process of this basilica. Who protectorate was it under? What were the famous religious leaders that often attended the basilica? Was it frequently visited by Venice population?

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 article is substantially neutral and does not present any favoured sides, be mindful of this when adding information, especially if it touches on religion.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
I found the citations to be confusing and incomplete, some of the citations did not work for me. I am also confused about how is the quote cited in the last paragraph in History section. The last citation seems to be duplicated. Description, conservation and restoration did not have any references, maybe you forgot to put them there?

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
Good job on breaking the article into several major topics! The history section seems to be the largest one so far, however my concern is it contains too much information that would fit more into the description section. Maybe break down the history section into several time period and description into stylistic sections. Creating a section that is connected to piety could also be helpful. A lot fo hyperlinks seems to be very disorganised, not really sure what happened there. Maybe also provide a section that talks about the architects who contributed to the formation of this basilica.

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
No images are so far included in the article but again I really suggest to take a look at the St Mark's Basilica wikipedia page! It provides great pictures and great examples of description under them

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
My overall expression is that the article is still a unfinished but already has some major improvements and additions from the original article. I like the fact that you are taking a new approach on discussing some of the architects who contributed to the construction as well as different architectural styles that were incorporated in this structure. I would suggest to exapnd on those because so far they seems to be the strongest points. The hyperlinks are confusing and the citations are a little unclear so I would also suggest to work on those. Google scholar has a lot of wonderful sources about the architectural layout of Venice in the renaissance era, I would recommend making a more extensive search, so you have more background in this. Keep up the good work, I am sure with a little bit more work it is going to be an amazing article!