User:Sumnerjones1/Giovanni Bellini/Adebbas 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? Sumnerjones1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sumnerjones1/Giovanni Bellini

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
There is a very detailed outline presented. There isn't an introductory sentence yet, but there is an outline which details the plan to make the introduction more attention grabbing.

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
The content added is relevant and up to date. There is no missing content, and the outline provided is very detailed and seems to have a clear focus.

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 content has a neutral tone, and is not heavily biased toward a particular position. I think the background information in the article itself is a little underrepresented. However, the changes proposed would add to that.

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 a lot of interesting articles and sources proposed. There is also a lot of background information which I think will strengthen the article a lot. All sources are current and capture a diverse spectrum of ideas. All links work.

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 article is well written and concise. There are no grammatical errors so far, and it is extremely organized and has a clear focus.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (no media added)


 * 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?

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
I really think that the changes made to the article will really improve it. The outline is very detailed and has a clear direction, which will aid the reader with not getting lost while reading. I really like how they focused on adding more "why" questions and answers. Even though the article states some basic facts, the changes proposed serve to give reasoning to the information about Bellini, and why it is important. I especially like the portion that serves to answer why we categorize Bellini's work in a different way than other Venetian artists. I think this would be a good place to expand upon. I think that adding some images of his work could be another interesting way to strengthen your argument. Although the changes added are good and really give the reader good background knowledge of Bellini, it would be helpful to maybe