User:Clarracuente/I quattro libri dell'architettura/Clarracuente 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? Not assigned to anyone.
• Link to draft you're reviewing: I quattro libri dell'architettura

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?n/a
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?Yes it does.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?Yes.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?yes, the fact about the translation into english.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I thought this lead was concise, gave a good amount of information without being repetitive.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? n/a
• Is the content added up-to-date?n/a
• 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? no.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? n/a
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?no.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?no.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?no, the content is neutral and informative.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?no.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?no.
• Are the sources current?not all.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?no.
• Check a few links. Do they work? One link does not work, also the sources are not all scholarly, would not say they are all reliable. Definitely need more referable and reviewed research.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? In reference to the content already there, in the last portion of the author section, it confused me. The wording made it overly complicated.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?There are some run on sentences I believe.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?it is well organized.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes, somewhat.
• Are images well-captioned?yes.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?yes, more images could have been more useful. Maybe an image of the author himself?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?n/a
• What are the strengths of the content added?n/a
• How can the content added be improved? Better sources/ research, giving clearer explanations of the more complicated concepts of the book. Also work on some of the grammar.