User:AlyssaPaganh/Laura McPhee/AlyssaPaganh Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? the first drafter of the article was User:Lanrod They do not seem to exist anymore.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Laura McPhee

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?

Lead evaluation
The lead describes Laura McPhee's career in a concise way. However, the lead does not provide any information about other sections of the article. It could be expanded to share a bit more about McPhee while not becoming overly detailed or overdone.

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?

Content evaluation
All of the content included was relevant. The article overviews her family, education, and exhibitions. I think a bit more could be added to describe what her work actually looks like. This could benefit the readers understanding of what her work looks like considering there was no photo included.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is neutral, it simply summarizes some basic information about her. More content could be added about her gear and process she uses.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The source links all work. There is a mixture of exhibition news and a couple of books. After looking at the Ben Rubin Gallery source, I believe some of the sentences are a bit too close to the actual article. Some of these should be reworked to avoid the problem of simply paraphrasing.

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?

Organization evaluation
The article is organized and easy to read. Certain aspects could be expanded to round out the profile. Certain words could also be linked in wikipedia, for example "large-format." This would provide some explanation for that type of photography as well as act as an opportunity to connect this article to others.

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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is 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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, this is a good start to an article. It is clear and concise and does not show technical issues. However, certain aspects of her career, like her artistic process, could be expanded. There is ample evidence of her exhibitions and publications which justify her as a notable artist by Wikipedia standards.