User:SuzuHigana/Rialto Bridge/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) SuzuHigana
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SuzuHigana/Rialto Bridge

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead paragraph already seems to have the main information about the bridge, SuzuHigana added a couple of details that add on to the other information in the paragraph.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence is clear and gives all the important information, where the bridge is located and its significance in Venice.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, there is some introductory information about the history but not about art and architectural history or specifications about the construction of it.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No all the information in the lead is further detailed in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise as it gives all the most important information about the bridge in clean and clear language.

Lead evaluation
The lead is very clear and gives good information. The details added by the editor are good additions and make the positioning and name of the bridge clearer. I would add some information about the other sections, such as art and architecture so that the lead is a guide to the whole article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes for the most part, the section about depictions of the bridge is very relevant aswell as the information about the wooden version of the bridge. I don't think the information about where Nicolo Barattieri is from is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Some things that don't belong are the information about Nicolo Barattieri in the Pontoon Bridge section. Also I think that this quote "The wooden bridge was represented in the painting by Vittore Carpaccio in 1494. It was also represented in the View of Venice by Jacopo de Barbari in 1500." should be moved from the wooden bridge section to the art section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Most of the content added is relevant and makes the article a lot better and more informative. I am a little confused about the significance of the pontoon bridge, I would specify if it is in the same location as the Rialto bridge now or if it is just the first bridge built. How is it related to the Rialto bridge?

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
All the information presented is neutral and unbiased. The editor did not favor one topic or position over the other or overrepresent one topic more than the other. I would not change the wording of any of the new information, it is all well written.

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
Most new content has a source listed. Some added information do not have a source associated with it. Most of the sources are journal articles which present reliable information, some other sources are news articles which are good for more current events or developments relating to the bridge. At times news articles can be biased so I would use those sources with caution. It seems like most of the links work and are all current.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content is clear and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I do not see any major grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, I like how the editor added more sections in the history section to make the stages of the Rialto bridge more clear. The editor also added a new section for each art work discussed which made that section very concise.

Organization evaluation
Great organization throughout the whole article. The new sections created added more clarity to the article as a whole.

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?

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?
 * Yes, the addition of the art and architecture section added more to the historical significance of the bridge to Venice.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * All information was clear and related to the topic. Adding more to the today section of the article made it seem more complete. Also the explanation of the wooded structure of the bridge was new information that was missing in the article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Some information was not completely related to the Rialto bridge and can be taken out: the information about Nicolo Barattieri. Also the significance of the platoon bridge to the Rialto bridge needs to be clarified. Are they the same thing?

Overall evaluation
Great job overall! The additions you made really added to the depth of the article, your sources were reputable and you made the history section of the article more clear.