Source 1 explicitly states the active years of Ugo da Capri as 1502-1532[1] while the article states it as 1509-1532 [2]
Makes several statements regarding Capri's status as one of the first users of the craft, yet no citation is listed in the paragraph it is mentioned. Applies to introduction of the article.
Reference to a writing book, but no citation regarding that either.
Citation 3 comes from a book. Might have to check into that since a lot of it references that specific text.
The flow of the article often times slows down due to editors poor choice of diction and syntax. Specific example, in the sub-section about Ugo da Capri's life, it mentions his first instance of existence yet the following sentence doesn't have a transition to it's topic.
Healthy mix of sources in the article. No reliance on a single source of text.
A statement seems to have the wrong source linked to it as that source has nothing to do anything with it. The statement is about how he was most likely self-taught or taught by local artists yet had nothing to back it up. (sourceless)
^Johnson, Jan. "Carpi, Ugo da". Oxford Art Online. Retrieved 12 Sep. 2017. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
