User:Slen1432/Lion of Venice/Esbeals 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? Slen1432
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Lion of Venice

According to Wiki, the sandbox page called "User:Slen1432/Lion of Venice" has not been created yet. I assume that this is because the user has not begun editing the article. I also checked to see if the Wiki page, itself, had been updated, but the last edit was made by Professor Cranston. In order to complete the peer review, I will make comments on the article, "The Lion of Venice," as it currently stands.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does include a description of several of the article's major sections. I feel that the lead may even be too detailed. It may be beneficial to simplify the lead, then expand in greater detail in the articles following sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead includes some description of the sculpture; however, the description section is practically empty.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? In my opinion, the lead is too detailed and specific.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The current content of the article is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The current content of the article appears to have last been updated in 2012. Additionally, the content of the article is lacking in references, so it is difficult to tell how old the sources used are.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Description, Medieval (under History), Scientific Analysis, and Iconography sections all exist in the article, but have practically no information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article does not appear to deal with or address either of these areas.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The current content of the article is neutral in tone.
 * 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? Currently, the majority of cited information is in the article's lead. The vast majority of content in the article is not sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Of the five references sited, four date to before 2012. I feel that there may be more recent sources in existence that can be utilized.
 * Are the sources current? No.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The authors appear to be predominately white.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is highly factual information.
 * 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.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes; however, the pictures included are all highly similar.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? It appears so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Adequate.

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? Mainly, yes. Some sources like Source #5 seem questionable.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No. There are only five sources.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Because there have been no edits, no.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Because there have been no edits, non-applicable.
 * How can the content added be improved? Information relevant to the sections mentioned above should be added. Referenced for new information should be included, and it would be beneficial in the information already in the article could be cited.