User talk:Romeroalena2/sandbox/The Four Continents

Peer Review
A lead section that is easy to understand

So the lead section is indeed clear in language and sentence structure, but labeling it History seems wrong considering half the text in that section relates to interpretation or iconography, so maybe just remove that portion and leave the title lead in blank, and placing the History portion elsewhere with the history relating to the paintings creation and its reception. Besides that little thing, the lead section is good!

A clear structure

I found the structuring of the article clear and it made sense besides the History section. Iconography, Interpretation, and Restoration all are well-written with sources provided where necessary. Maybe place the History section immediately after the lead in with the appropriate information.

Balanced coverage

I think a person would need to be blind to not see how balanced the coverage is. Each section has the appropriate amount of coverage relative to the others and their relevance to the artwork. It makes sense that the Restoration section has less coverage compared to the Iconography or Interpretation section.

Neutral content

The language is neutral and professionally placed. The reader doesn't feel like the writer is using charged language with overt intentions.

Reliable sources

I checked he sources out and they do appear to be reliable and relevant to the article. My only note for the sources is that maybe it would be helpful/ beneficial to reference them more. I mean just placing one of those reference blue numbers that appears.

Altogether this is really strong and you should be really proud of the work you've put in so far. I think if you continue in this manner you're going to have a successful article at the end of the semester! Just be sure to check that the structure makes sense and that you continue your level of section coverage. Revenedit (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)