User:Veronikamykh/Il Redentore/Aperriello 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? Veronikamykh
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Veronikamykh/Il Redentore

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
The lead that is included in this draft is a strong introduction to Il Redentore, without being overly specific. I agree with the decision to not stray from the already published content, just because it was already successful.

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
I like the inclusion of the contents section, because it does a lot for improving the structure of the article. I also feel as though the content you added was good; the way that you incorporated your own familiarity with architecture into the descriptions of the building did a lot to make the overall work stronger.

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
I think you did well here because while I had the sense you brought your own knowledge of architecture into this article, it didn't come across as though you seemed biased towards any particular position.

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
The sources included were of good quality. Though I'm not sure what kind of information is being continually published on a church of this age, I think it could help you to include contemporary information if you could find information on any sort of restoration or conservation projects done on the church in recent decades. How is the church used now? Is it still utilized as a church or is it treated at all like a historical monument?

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
I think the content is well written. Lacking some familiarity with architecture, I did have some challenges in visualizing some of the descriptions you included, but I believe that overall the writing is well done and the organization is strong.

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?

Images and media evaluation
I think that if you are able to gain access to more images of this church or its plan, it could be a really useful means of illustrating some of the features you describe in your writing.

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 like your article. I think that you provide a lot of information that wasn't just technically correct, but was also thoughtful in terms of its placement and content. I think my main suggestions are to see if you can include information about the church in the modern day, and also provide images if you can to solidify some of your descriptions of the architecture.