User:Audkal/Ray Eames/Charlottereid1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Audkal


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Audkal/Ray Eames


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Dear Audrey,

I really enjoyed reading your draft. I have a handful of nitpicky suggestions for you to consider.


 * Early life: I'd rephrase "quality of enjoyment."
 * Education: I would add a link to Lu Duble.
 * New York Work: I think "Hoffman" might be misspelled.
 * Textile design: it looks like you are deleting the first mention of MoMA from the original article. If that's the case, I would change the "MoMA" in the textile design section to the Museum of Modern Art and link it.
 * Marriage with Charles Eames: this one is pretty subjective. To me, the word "outstanding" seems a bit too positive for Wikipedia. I'd consider changing it to notable/distinguished/acclaimed/influential/celebrated.
 * Graphic design: I personally think the sentence "This attribute made a difference between good, very good, and 'Eames'" should be cited and/or changed.
 * Films: I would consider moving the film section to after the design sections.
 * Plywood design: I would add your contribution to the plywood design section before the last sentence in the current section instead of after it.
 * Lounge Chair Wood: I think that the word "copies" is meant to be "copied."
 * Shell Chair: Another one that is very subjective. Personally, I would change the word noticeable to distinctive or something else.
 * Recognition: A subtle nod to the capsule wardrobe! Love it!

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, but I don't think that it needs to be. I am curious about the removal of the word filmmaker from the introduction though.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, but I'm not sure that it needs to.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? For the most part. (Addressed above.)
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? No.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Addressed above.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

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 text adds four more images to the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? No, the splint image isn't captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, all of the images are taken from Wikimedia Commons.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the images appear well balanced despite being in a relatively small space.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:

Overall evaluation:
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the added content improved the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Strengths of the content added include the addition of more detailed information on Eames' career, including sections on notable furniture and films she has produced.
 * How can the content added be improved? Some citations appear to be missing from the existing article.
 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources? Yes, there are a number of reputable sources in the article.
 * Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? If not, can you think of anything we've read that might be useful for them? I don't think so. I can't think of anything we've read that seems like a relevant addition to the article to me.
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material? Yes, the article describes how Eames' contribution to her company had not been taken seriously. This is reminiscent of conversations we have had in class about women's work not being considered to be real or of value.
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article? Yes, the article describes how the public perception of Eames has changed over time and explains why her innovations were so ground-breaking at the time.
 * Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further? If available, it would be interesting to see more detail on how Eames' work has been viewed in the past and how the perception of her as a lesser contributor compared to her husband has manifested.