User:Vnicolet/Alessandro Leopardi/Atian117 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? Vnicolet
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Vnicolet/Alessandro Leopardi

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead is not very descriptive but does mention some new information.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, quick overview of who the artist is
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, I don't see anything but it would be a great addition.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Not that I see.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Pretty concise but could add more to it

Lead evaluation
Short lead so far, some overviews about the major sections would be great

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, additions about Leopardis work and timeline of the work
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Talks about some new topics

Content evaluation
Great additions!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, seems very informational and unbiased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, just information
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
Solid tone and balance!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Sources are not shown but will probably be added later.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No sources yet
 * Are the sources current? No sources yet
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No sources yet
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No sources yet

Sources and references evaluation
No sources yet

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * 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? No sections yet

Organization evaluation
It would be good to add some sections but the content that you have added is great

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media: did not add any 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? Great content added!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Lots of information on additional artworks and includes the timeline of each thing
 * How can the content added be improved? Just add more of whatever you can find!

Overall evaluation
Great content! Organization and sources need to be added! Great start so far!