User:Artylearner/Monument Lab/Faith.amaris Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Arty Learner


 * Link to draft you're reviewing


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

To begin with the pros I love the direction that this direction is going in. There is a heavy focus on more current projects occurring for the monument lab. So essentially my colleague is making this article for up to date. Perfect. The definition was also customized some, which was good and clear. The lead section is clear and easy to follow, the structure is clear and this is an overall good foundation to begin your final draft. Additionally your first draft is neutral and lacks bias which is always good. The sources are also functional and clear. Each source Is also from a good reliable site.

As far as improvements go I would love to see more links to other similar art movements. I see you got some of a start on that which is good, but since this art movement started in Philly maybe look for other art movements in other cities that are similar. Namely like bigger cities like New york or California. It would be a good add-on to your draft. Additionally in the projects section of your draft I see you list many, many artist which is good but some background information about the artist would be rather helpful. Despite I still feel overall satisfied with your topic and your information is still beneficial to the original wikipedia page. I do not see any missing pieces. The structure is also nice and concise. Also I see your draft is a bit lengthy, however I think for your topic it is necessary since your are primarily focusing on up to date projects.