User:DarcyDU/The Crowning with Thorns (Titian, Paris)/GraceGAC Peer Review

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.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

DarcyDU

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:DarcyDU/The Crowning with Thorns (Titian, Paris)
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
The Crowning with Thorns (Titian, Paris)

Evaluate the drafted changes

I like your addition to the lead paragraph, as it updates readers concerning the current whereabouts of this piece of art.

I would read through the original article again, and make length and clarity edits to the wording of certain sentences. The very first sentence and the first sentences of the body paragraphs could use some reworking.

Certain sentences also stick out to me as not being neutral, such as "the violence is relieved and Christ's suffering exalted by the beauty of the colours", and "Titian pulls out all the Venetian stops and one can sense the blood flowing through the veins under the flesh." Is there a way to express these thoughts more objectively?

Concerning your prospective section additions, I would edit the title "Sculptural References of the Painting", as it was initially unclear to me if you meant to describe references that are included within the painting, or sculptures that were created to reference this painting. Within the section "Belvedere Torso", the sentence "Who is depicted in the statue is still up to debate but the most popular speculation is the Greek hero Ajax thinking over his own own suicide" could use some reworking, especially removing the double "own." The final section "Titian’s The Crowing with Thorns (Munich)" seems to be missing a few words.

With some additional details and sources, I really like your prospective additions to this article, as the existing article leaves information to be desired. Perhaps you could add some photos within your explanation of sculptural references? It might help readers draw connections between pieces of art. It might also be interesting to add more details about the process of creating this painting, if that information is accessible. I think this is a great start. Keep up the good work.