User:Annaschechter/Siri Rathsman: she/her, Swedish, 1895-1974/Nnavya 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? - Annaschechter
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Siri Rathsman

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 is concise and identifies the artist by profession and background succinctly in 2 sentences.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
All of the content is relevant and up-to-date. There is specific evidence of the artist's life, her education, career, and personal life that adds up to provide a comprehensive chronological account.

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 tone is mostly neutral with many facts presented one after another. One area that could've been expanded on was how her collaborations and engagement with manifestos affected her work and career. Specifically with more famous like Diego Rivera. There is no opinion-based claims or personal and derived perspectives expressed.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Sources are wide in range. Inclusion is evident from sources of texts from different languages. Although the question of translation affecting the veracity of information presented comes up. Citation style is consistent and easy to read.

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 sections are standard and easy to navigate. The content following up also remains specific to its topic. No grammatical or spelling errors.

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
Images present are portraits of the artist that help the reader visualise her and hence enhance their understanding. Captions are effective and brief. The placement of the portraits are sensible with the main portrait of her face with a sharper focus on top, and another more subjective portrait below that for further interpretation. Perhaps an addition with pictures of the exhibition would give more insight into her work and what she's contributed to the art world.

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?

New Article Evaluation
Article does link to other articles so it is more discoverable and meets notability requirements.

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
The article helps identify and trace the life of a lesser known artist. It also collects information from an wide but essential and interesting range of sources that proves to organise quick access to information. Content may be improved by adding claims of critical reception of art and providing information on present life status.