User talk:Zoeswain/View of Delft
Peer Review[edit]
- A lead section that is easy to understand
- The lead section is long and includes information about the composition that could work better in the description section instead.
- A clear structure
- Lead, Description, Interpretation, and Legacy seem like good subheadings.
- I think the camera obscura, daytime, and political can all be under one interpretation section.
- The political interpretation could be related to the painter sooner, it seems irrelevant until the last sentence. I’d probably put that sentence first instead.
- Legacy seems like it should be about after the painting, so the first sentence about who commissioned it might be better in the lead introduction. The sentences about Marcel Proust do not seem connected to the painting very much, maybe he only needs one sentence saying how this painting inspired his writing. This section could conclude with a sentence stating the painting is now in the Hague.
- Balanced coverage
- It’s hard to tell if this has balanced coverage since I do not see citations and how often certain sources were used.
- Neutral content
- Some of the statements seem passionate, such as the camera obscura section where the historian is “vehement that ‘At no phase of the work on any of his paintings did Vermeer make use of a camera obscura.’” Perhaps this wording could be made more neutral.
- Reliable sources
- I’m not seeing any sources cited. Most if not all sources should be connected to a citation. All I see is a lot of ^ symbols.
Absolutelynotokay (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)