User:Boopertdaysunshine/Girl with a Red Hat/MichelleKangLucas Peer Review

A lead section that is easy to understand

The lead section does have important information about the work that pertains to historical key terms(e.g tronies) and also provides information about the scale and recycled wood panel. The information about the controversy is also important. This section is well written and may be better suited in or added to the Materials and Techniques section. I think the Subject heading and its information is much better for the lead of information for this piece, what you have written reads very well and would be better place in the lead section so viewers directly receive the information of who and what is going on in the portrait.

Clear structure

The structure is clear and easy to follow, I think changing the lead info to what you have written in the Subject heading would provide more comprehensive flow. This is still a work in progress for us all and I am seeing good foundational outlined phrases for where information will go next and what information needs to be added.

Balanced coverage

The coverage for each sub heading is fair a balanced throughout the article. I think the artists section is perfect and the Attribution section is great for covering this piece and some of the contentious opinions still floating around about the work.

Neutral content

The article provides well read neutral material. Everything reads unbiased and straight forward regarding the piece and its information.

Reliable sources

There are four reliable sources so far that are entered correctly, I imagine other resources will be entering the threshold was we progress further into the wiki article project.

Original Article

I can see that several changes have been made that enhance the article, I understand now that changing up the lead section and subject section might serve as a hurtle in the event that it could be seen as veering away from the original article' structure, which we are trying to keep intact as much as possible. But I do wonder if it could still be a possibility.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 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.)