User talk:Cknutso6

Welcome!

Hello, Cknutso6, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Giornata Peer Review

Lead Section: Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?

 - I am satisfied by the lead, it provides a short but comprehensive overview of the topic. Unfortunately it makes up the majority of the article. 

Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?

 - Mostly, the one criticism I have is the lead never mentions the origins of this technique and that it was developed in renaissance-era Italy. 

Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?

 - The lead focuses on the technique itself but gives no credit to its historical importance, origins, development, or history. I think those are 
   important factors to include in the article.

Structure: Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

 - The structure is basically nonexistent because there is so little content. I think there is a good basic structure and what is there could be good to 
   build off of.

Coverage: Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?

 - The description of the technique is adequate. I think there is still a fair amount to expand within the technique but it is fleshed out enough to give 
   the reader a basic understanding of the technique. The notable examples section is fairly lacking in analysis and description but is very much 
   necessary to give the reader visual examples of the technique. There needs to be more sections focusing on the origins, history, and developments of 
   the technique. Is it still used by artists today? Have they adapted it to fit new styles and uses?

Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

 - It definitely reflects the perspectives of the sources used. However, I'm sure that there is a great deal of published research that represents many 
   different perspectives and viewpoints. I think that a lot more needs to be added to this article.

Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

 - No it is very neutrally written and doesn't try to convince the reader of anything. 

Content: Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?

 - I don't think that there is much of a perspective to hold about giornata so no I cannot guess what perspectives the author holds.

Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."

 - I did not identify any words or phrases that don't feel neutral.

Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."

 - Not in what I have observed.

Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

 - No, it is a truly neutral article, that aspect of the writhing was done very well. 

Sources: Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?

 - Many statements in the article either are not sourced at all or attributed to fresco-technique.com which isn't a scholarly or peer-reviewed source. 

Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.

 - There are only two sources used in the article, only one of the two is scholarly and peer reviewed, the other appears to be a self-published blog style 
   site which isn't inherently not credible but must be supplemented with more credible sources to prove its credibility. 

Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!

 - There are several statements and sentences that are completely unsourced, I'm sure that the sources noted are where that information came from but 
   there aren't enough direct footnotes for that information to be cited correctly.

MISC: If more published research cannot be found and the history/origins of this technique truly cannot be identified you should consider making this a sub-point within the Buon-Fresco page instead of its own specific page.

Bscheib (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC) bscheib