The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Peer review
Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:
Lead
Guiding questions:
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
Content
Guiding questions:
Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:
Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
Sources and References
Guiding questions:
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?
Organization
Guiding questions:
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added 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 for 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?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?
Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.
I really like your addition to the inspiration paragraph, and I think it expands the section in a useful manner. I would potentially add a short description or introduction of Villa Emo differentiating it from the Villa La Rotonda before describing its design, as in my first read through I confused the two Villas while trying to process all of the information.
Your additions to the design section of the article are relevant and well written. Don't forget to add references and hyperlinks to other articles where necessary. When describing the Villa, the sentence "there is evidence that the northeast and southeast facades were slightly favored as actual entrances" could be reworked to include the evidence that points to this conclusion.
Could the sentence "The name La Rotonda refers to the central circular hall with its dome." be included within the lead? This might be helpful information for a reader who is only glancing quickly at the article.
In your description of changes to the Palladio, the sentence "That seen in Palladio's I quattro libri dell'architettura, originally drawn and designed by the architect." could be reworked. Perhaps it could be rephrased as "The first view is that which can be seen in Palladio's I quattro libri dell'architettura, which was originally drawn and designed by the architect."
So far, I think your edits have been well organized and neutral in tone. Perhaps you could read through the remaining sections of the article and see if there is anything more to add. Keep up the good work.
