User:Anna.222444/Irene Perez/Purplepenguink Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Irene Perez


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Draft:Irene Pérez
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Draft:Irene Pérez

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * lead is really good and represents the content that will be discussed. (year to year) is the first thing though, and I think it should be changed to represent her birthday.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes lead is concise and clear
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * yes there is a brief introduction
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no everything is good !
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * content is relevant and everything is good
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * content is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I feel that the sentence about consuela Mendez is not too relevant
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * yes and it is expressed and explained when mentioned.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * content is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * nothing that seems heavily biased. All criticisms are from other sources and stated as such.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * None
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No persuasion in content

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes-- I would make sure to include citations after each sentence just in case. Most are already noted as "citation needed" on ur article
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes there are many sources
 * Are the sources current?
 * many sources are relatively current from around early 2000s
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes they are
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * no other sources are available, all sources are accurate, and there is not other information other than the articles and references given
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes they all work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * well write and easy to read
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no grammar or spelling errors
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?]
 * content is well organized! I would just remove the bullet points for the first two paragraphs under the artworks subsections.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes, the images are relevant to the art pieces that are spoken about
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * they are well captioned
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, the images give credit to whoever owns it
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes they are organized in a nice way

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * yes there are more than 2-3 sources
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Yes all sources accurately represent the article and that artist that is being spoken about
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * I dont see any links

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Overall the content is good., there is a note from wikipedia that it may need finishing, but to me the article is complete
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * content is concise with no bias, and provides lots of information on art pieces
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think just adding the sources would be helpful !