User:Beepboop327/Pietro Lombardo/Beepboop327 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Yes, a new paragraph about his beginnings as a sculptor and architect were added (is that part of the lead?)
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- It is the same as the normal article, but it does introduce who he is in general.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No, I don't really see a distinction between the lead and the body of the article, maybe inserting heading for topics and a table of contents may be helpful in differentiating the lead from the body.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- new photo "Mausoleo ad Antonio Roselli in Sant'Antonio, Padua"
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- it is concise

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- yes, the second paragraph also includes timelines of his work
Is the content added up-to-date?
- yes
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- a table of contents after the lead
- Headings to help separate different topics of the article
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- no

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
- yes
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- no
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- the last paragraph could maybe use more context/be expanded upon or be placed in a different part of the article
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- no

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- yes
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- yes, there is a good amount of sources that are evenly used throughout the article
Are the sources current?
- yes
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- yes, no
Check a few links. Do they work?
- yes

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- yes it is easy to read and factual
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- In the fifth paragraph, Doge in "Doge Pasquale Malipiero" is spelled wrong
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- some headings and sections may be helpful, like one possibly titled "Lombardo's Works"

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- yes, they give visuals to the information and monuments discussed
Are images well-captioned?
- yes they include the name of the monument and where they are
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- I don't think the creators were credited, some photos I can't seem to find on CC Search for their license
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- yes

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- yes, it's a lot more complete and expands on different works that Lombardo made
What are the strengths of the content added?
- very detailed about specific works, includes photos, gives a timeline to Lombardo's works
How can the content added be improved?
- Adding heading and dividing up topics