User:Rshukla1/Basilica Palladiana/Hmhaw 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: 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's introductory sentence is clear and succinctly describes what the topic is. The Lead does mention main points in the article that are talked about in greater detail in the history and description sections of the article. All information mentioned in the Lead is explained in greater detail later on in the article. The Lead is concise, I don't think it is overly detailed.

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
Overall the content is good and most everything in the article is important and relevant. One thing that can be taken out is the fact that the bells in the bell tower are in E major, this was also mentioned twice in the whole article, so at least one should be deleted. Other than that all the content is up to date and relevant. In the restoration section, more specifics can be added about what the restoration entails.

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 overall tone of the article seems neutral and unbiased. No viewpoints are over or underrepresented.

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
There are only 3 sources listed and not a lot of the facts are directly cited. The listed sources are not very detailed, they are all websites which each provide only a paragraph on the topic. There should be more sources that are not websites, such as books or academic journal articles. This way there will be a more diverse spectrum of authors and sources. Also there needs to be more citations in the article itself.

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 is overall well written. However, there are some sentences that are a little confusing and have some grammatical and word choice errors. I think overall it is organized well into the four main sections, however more could be added to the last two sections, conservatism and restoration.

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
All the images in the article are clear and help the reader understand the topic better. The map that shows where the Basilica is located in Veneto and in Italy as a whole, which is very helpful for the reader. The captions are specific and clear.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content is strong but it needs to be properly cited with more than 3 sources. There were also some confusing sentences, which can be fixed with improved word choice.The organization and images are very strong and all the images are clear and helpful to understand the topic