User talk:Emily Van Ravenswaay/sandbox

Emily's Peer Review
Lead Section: Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?

- The lead is very direct and to the point, which I think is good to have for a wikipedia article. If you wanted to add something about how it wasn't finished initially, and then got finished by a different artist, I think that would be helpful for someone who just wants a quick understanding of the painting without having to read super far into the article.

Structure: Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

- I think the article is cut into very logical categories. I can't think of any other subtitles and sections that would benefit.

Coverage: Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?

- I think you could expand on the analysis more. Your sentences are pretty choppy so I think you could go into more depth about the things you point out.

Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

- Not that I can tell.

Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

- This article was not very persuasive in my opinion. It was for the most part, neutral.

Content: Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?

- I can tell that the author really loves this piece and thinks it deserves more recognition than it has.

Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."

- "This painting is considered one of the most famous Madonna portraits of Italian Renaissance painter, Raphael." Since you don't cite this, it comes off as an opinion. I would either rephrase or explain who are the people who think this is the most famous?

Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."

- Not in what I have observed.

Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

- Not that I can tell.

Sources: Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?

- Many statements in the article either are not sourced at all or attributed to www.raphael-sanzio.com which isn't a scholarly or peer-reviewed source.

Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.

- The author has a fair amount of sources, not all scholarly. Some statements are not cited, so I would go through and cite them.

Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!

- There are several statements and sentences that are completely unsourced.