Talk:Fidelity (art and symbolism)
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Peer Review
1. Unbiased - Definitely! You used a variety of sources and it was written in the non-biased, encyclopedia format that Wikipedia encourages.
2. Referenced - I think your references were excellent. I read on the Wikipedia "new users" page that websites ending in ".edu" are considered unbiased, so you may want to consider adding an .edu reference since the other sources are all books.
3. Notable/Important - Yes, I think your article meets this criteria. Would adding examples of fidelity in important paintings add value to this category? Reading your article made me curious about examples of fidelity in paintings I may have seen before, and if my guesses about fidelity are correct. (I saw that you tried to post pictures, so you may have already attempted this).
4. Complete but Concise - I like how you used different categories. You may want to add a brief definition of what "allegory" means in this context; I'm not quite sure what it means.
5. Visual - If you are able to add pictures, I think this would make the article even better and easier for "non-art experts" to understand.
6. Linked - Perhaps you could link this article to artists who used fidelity in their work, or art history programs/professors who are experts in the topic, for people who want to learn more about fidelity. I saw that you tried to link to "Dogs" - too bad Wikipedia didn't allow this - because I found it very interesting that a dog is a symbol of fidelity.
7. Clearly Written - Yes, I thought your article fit this criteria very well. I liked how you used sub-categories and titles for new paragraphs - it made the article very clear.
(----)