User:The Renaissance Explorer/Self-Portrait with Bandaged Ear/Puffles cafe Peer Review

General info
The Renaissance Explorer
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * 
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Self-Portrait with Bandaged Ear

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has not been edited yet
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The existing one is concise and well introduces the piece.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead does make a general statement regarding the time, period and painter of the piece. These aspects are also mentioned under other subheadings in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? At the moment is a really strong, but stand-alone introduction (separated from the rest of the text). Could reflect further on ideas discussed later on in the text. - and mention the major sections as well.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The added content is both relevant and better fills in the missing ideas in the original text.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? My peer ensures to make use of appropriate citations that add support to factual information presented. Since she covers the piece from a historical standpoint, the content added refers to the time period  that the piece it belongs to.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The article has parts that has missing gaps between information within the same subsection. My peer has worked on filling in these gaps, and improving its clarity and overall cohesiveness.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? The content added does achieve and maintain a neutral tone. This is achieved in approaching the content from a historical standpoint.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is a good balance maintained in the edited text, when it comes to the representation of ideas. There isn't a heavy tilt/ highlight to any one topic, allowing for a better overall balance.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Largely neutral. The content strongly reads as informative.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the new content is supported by credible sources, including journal articles and books available online.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Yes the content is clearly reflected in the sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? The sources generally seem to be current, with the exception of journals that consider the historical facts and information  regarding the piece. (That in this case better improve support to this significant painting in art history)
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There are a variety of sources considered, including Journal articles, other Wikipedia pages and museum pages.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? There is a journal article (accessible by worldcat library), however majority of the sources are taken from sites dedicated to exploring this specific artists work. Maybe a consider a few more peer reviewed journal articles, to balance out the current proportion of sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The added links do work

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. My peer has maintained a good balance and in adding the content that she choose to, the overall clarity of the text improves. This allows for a much smoother reading experience, than with the original article, wherein the transitions between one point to the next seem abrupt.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not to my knowledge.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, the content is well organized and concise. The individual sections expand on the major aspects of the topic.

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * ﻿﻿Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A