User:Broeygisvon1446/Nikki S. Lee/Jieun7553 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Broeygisvon1446)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Broeygisvon1446/Nikki_S._Lee?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Nikki S. Lee

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi! I am Mabel, and this is my peer review for you. And I am very sorry for the length of my article.......

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - Yes, I see that you added more detailed information about her background as well as the major information about her art. I think it was a good choice to add her notable work in the lead as it personally made me want to read the body of the article to know about that specific work as well as other information. The Lead section as of now seems pretty good to me as it has a clear introductory sentence that describes the topic and covers the content of the article body although not like 100% of those, which I am not sure is required or not. The length of it is pretty short so if you want to expand on it maybe you can add a sentence or even a phrase about what she is focusing on now, if you have that information.

Content

 * Is the content added up-to-date? -
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - Basic information about her background like when and where she was born was in your lead section but is missing in Early Life and Education section. I see that you deleted that part from the original article. I think you should add a simple sentence with those information in the beginning of the article even though the information was already in the Lead section because the Lead is supposed to be a summary, and it doesn't make sense that the summary has a content that is not in the body. I might be wrong though, maybe look at the well-established articles about any artist and see what they did.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes, they are.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - I don't think so.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Yes. I see that you added more in-text citation not only to the new sentences you added but also to some part that was already in the existing article.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? - In Project section, you said "Everyone was aware of Lee being an artist as she went through this process, though not all of them believed her," when the original source doesn't exactly indicate that? I think. The source "Collections: MoCP" says that "She introduces herself as an artist (though not everyone believes her or takes it seriously)". So I think it might be better to say that Lee identified herself as an artist regardless of others' view or something like that. But you decide what suits better of course! It's just a suggestion.
 * Are the sources thorough? - I think they are.
 * Are the sources current? - I see that a number of sources that you used are already used in the existing articles, but that is understandable because you are talking about the same person and the sources are limited. In that sense, new sources you added, Higgins, Jackie; Kozloff, Max (2014). "Nikki S. Lee" and "Collections: MoCP", seem to be current.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? - I think you could try to find another article that was not used in the existing article but I understand it might be nearly impossible. So maybe try, but I think you did a good job with finding a new one.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written? - Most part of your draft right now is from the existing article, so this doesn't really apply to your writings, but I think the first paragraph in the explanation about her Project could be written better because right now it doesn't read like a well-written paragraph but more like a collage of informations regarding the work. Maybe adding some suiting transitions in the sentences or re-arranging them in a better order could make it better.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - I don't see them.
 * Is the content added well-organized? - Yes I think it was a good choice to change the sub-heading from 2002-present to Parts, 2002-2005 because it is more consistent with Projects, 1997–2001.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article? - You probably will add more sections for the final draft and for now there isn't any new section in the article, so I cannot really say anything, but the new sentences you added provide interesting points that completes the section better, so I would say keep going, the direction you're taking seems good.
 * How can the content added be improved? - Find the best place for the new information to be added could be a general advice.