User:Brayan Hernandez Barragan/User:Brittanylutge0/Chike Aniakor/Brayan Hernandez Barragan Peer Review

Peer review

Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has not been updated regarding the content since the last time something was edited or added was November 1st.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does have an introductory sentence in such a way that it is perfectly understood what the article is about. In addition, from the first sentence the content that the article will contain can be interpreted in a good way.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? This does contain a brief description of some of the sections of the article since they are not specifically mentioned but it is easy to deduce the topics that the article will cover simply by reading the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything that is mentioned in this introduction can be fully reflected in the rest of the article with its respective sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I consider that the lead is closer to the concise than the detailed since I do not see that it has unnecessary information within it. I think it's specific regarding what the rest of the article represents.
 * Content
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content found is relevant since it really explains what the artist represents and talks about who he is and the things he achieved. In addition, the information focuses entirely on what the artist achieved in his life and details each aspect of the article in a good way.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content regarding what the artist did is updated with information about his career. However, if it comes to the fact that the information that was added was recently, I will say no since the last update of the article was a couple of weeks ago.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content is quite solid, and I don't consider that anything in it doesn't belong. On the other hand, with the content that the article contains, it can be presented perfectly as a very well-organized article but, however, details can be improved by adding more content.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article does not directly address these issues, but I think that one way of considering it is that it talks about a culture which often does not pay the necessary attention.The Nigerian culture is a unique and diverse culture and I think that the article talking about an artist with this origin allows people to learn a little more about this culture or population.

For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
 * Tone and Balance
 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, I consider that the content found in this article is made from a neutral point of view. The purpose of this article is                   to give general information about an artist and at no time is the information affected by biases.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the sentences used seem very well written to me. The structure and purpose they have do not seem to me to be affected by the attempt to defend a position. I would classify the article as very general information in which it talks about the artist and his life without leaning towards comments or opinions.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the topics that are described seem to me to be well proposed in such a way that the direction that each sentence is taking is understood.In the same way, the structure makes each inclusion or reference about something have a good connection with the way the article was written.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? All the content found in the article does not at any time seek to persuade the reader towards a position for or against. The purpose of the information is to inform but without the need to magnify or belittle the artist being talked about.
 * Sources and References
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the content found is well supported by a reliable source of information. In addition, every sentence or idea that can be read is supported by a source which establishes that the idea is true.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) In effect, each sentence where a reference is found relates to a cited source. In the same way, these sources used specifically and correctly support each idea that is established.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I consider that in a certain way the sources largely reflect the literature on the topic in which they are found. I think that the ideas that the sources have are represented in a good way within the article since they really emphasize what is narrated within the information.
 * Are the sources current? Many of the sources used, not to mention the vast majority, are not current. Some of the most recent ones could be said to be from 3 or 4 years ago while the majority are information that is older.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?  The sources are  written by various authors, making the information about the artist seen  in different ways but focusing on the same objective. In some of the bridges, marginalized people are used but with the purpose of providing a more historical vision where things are focused on as close to reality as possible.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) From the research I did, I really believe that there are no sources with information as varied and specific as those used in this article. The fact that there are so many sources means that all the information together is related in a very good way, making the ideas really have very good support. The sources used really reflect good information, which makes it very varied and that each sentence and idea complements well.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, some of the links I tried work while others I couldn't exactly search for the information, however the vast majority work.
 * Organization
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content has a good structure in each sentence and paragraph that makes it easy to read and understand.Furthermore, I consider that each idea found in each paragraph is well focused. The ideas are not extended at all, which means that the article does not contain unnecessary information but is well focused on the ideas so that they are very precise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, from what I could perceive after checking it a couple of times,     the article does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. It should be noted that I personally find even the structure of the sentences very good.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the organization of the article was something that caught attention from the beginning because of how well distributed it is. Each topic is well structured and supported by paragraphs and ideas. However, something I would modify would be the "1970–2000" and "1990s–Present" sections. I would modify this in such a way that these sections will be found together or followed one after the other so that the article has a better relationship between all the content.
 * Images and Media
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, throughout the article you can see some images that relate perfectly to their respective paragraphs. Furthermore, including the images in the artwork sections makes them very useful since that way you can understand the information better since apart from giving a background of the work you can see it in the image.
 * Are images well-captioned? Personally, I would say yes since the images contain the name of the image at the bottom along with the date the works were made. However, I think that if it is possible, a little information can be added to understand more about it, but I think that is already achieved in the paragraphs.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The images used mostly comply with copyright regulations since in a certain way they are given credit in the references.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the idea that the images are located next to the information makes it easier to have a clearer idea about the works of art. They really attract attention when seen mainly because of the position and the choice of images that were made. However, I think that more images could be used in respective sections to have clearer ideas about certain things such as the artist's appearance.
 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? This article has several sources which can be considered reliable, which very well support the information mentioned here. In terms of whether the sources are independent of the topic, I would consider that they are not since these sources are related to the same topic.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list of sources is quite considerable, making it contain many sources which help this article have a great impact in capturing the life of the artist. In addition, it does fulfill the idea of representing everything that is found on the topic since it is information that narrates what is mentioned in the source without being repetitive or confusing.
 * 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? Yes, this article does contain several patterns like those of other articles. One of the main similarities is seen in the structure of the entire article, the use and positioning of the images and simply the way in which the information is divided, which makes it share characteristics of other  articles in terms of structure.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, throughout this article you can find multiple links about certain terms that may be confusing for people. What this does is that it is easier to understand the ideas that are mentioned in the sentences so    that the information in the article is more visible.
 * Overall impressions
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The information contained in the article seems to me to make the article considered of very good quality because it meets several very good aspects to be taken as useful and fulfills its purpose. It is a very complete article due to the great structure it has but it can undoubtedly be improved to make it better.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Some of its strong points are the structure, organization and representation of ideas given to each paragraph and section. It is easy to understand due to the tone it has since it is not affected by opinions and the use of images is appropriate to facilitate the understanding of the text.
 * How can the content added be improved? The way this article could be improved could be by integrating more sections just as an addition to learn more about the artist. Adding an image of it to get an idea of what it looks like or just to make the article more attractive and make it easy and quick to understand when reading the sections. I consider that there are terms, places and concepts in which links could be added in order to know their definition so that readers have the possibility of clarifying doubts that certain words generate.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Brittanylutge0/Chike Aniakor
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Brittanylutge0/Chike Aniakor:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):