User:BlueKoolaide/Luisa Roldán/Messinadress 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? (BlueKoolaide)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:BlueKoolaide/sandbox
 * Editors: AnonymousAppleSauce and Messinadress

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?- Yes
 * 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?- More than the original Lead
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?-No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?-Does a good job at outlining who she is (not too bulky)

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?- Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?-Yes, most recent citation is 2016..
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?- Removed her middle name from the Lead
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?- Yes, it addresses women artists in the early modern period.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?- Yes!
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?- None that stand out, all generally fact driven
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?- Not at this point in their process.
 * 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! Lots of citations
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?-Yes
 * Are the sources current?-Wide range of info on bib. spanning across many years !
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?- At least four woman, a few may be Spanish authors..
 * Check a few links. Do they work? (see below)

[5] “Cádiz Cofrade – Imagineía” http://www.cadizcofrade.net/imagineros/roldana.html. (DOESNT WORK)

[9]Narayan Khandekar and Michael Schilling “A Technical Examination of a Seventeenth-Century Polychrome Sculpture of St. Gines de la Jara by Luisa Roldan” Studies in Conversation Vol. 46, No. 1 (2001): 23-34. https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.ithaca.edu/stable/1506880?sid=primo&origin=crossref&seq=9#metadata_info_tab_contents. (USE STABLE LINK AND NOT REMOTE ACCESS LINK)

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?- None that are noticeable
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?- its a bit chunky, dont be afraid to break it into another paragraph

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? n/a
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

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?-n/a
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?-n/a
 * 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?-n/a
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?-n/a

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?- Yes ! Really gives a better sense of who the artist was!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?- How thorough their research was
 * How can the content added be improved?- Add images if possible! Maybe move some of the more specific content in the lead to other sections in the main article, or break it up better visually at the top?