User:Rwong17/Villa Capra "La Rotonda"/Wikinerd03 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)  Rwong17
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Rwong17/Villa Capra "La Rotonda"

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * 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. The lead has sophisticated structure of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Subtle important additional information is added to the lead and definitely compliments already existing info.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise and well-explained.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. The content added expands the existing sentences.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes. Especially, the information about design and current conditions of the Villa.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? YES
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, for the most part.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. All links are clickable.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. The content is coherent and straight to the point.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. The writer tried to add important information in the parts, that had to be explained or expanded.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes but I would add few more examples of close ups of the frescos, for example, or the most current few of the Villa. Also, additional images can be added to the "Landscape section" to show the readers the surroundings of the Villa.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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? Absolutely yes. The information added is crucial for full understanding of current conditions of the villa, as well as its design and interior.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The clarifications in the "Design Section" are strong and very explanatory.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think there is a potential to expand more on the sections that are described briefly. For example, the writer can do more research on the landscape of the villa and its presence in filmography.