User:Cboka/Mars Wright/Jloon Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cboka


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Cboka's Mars Wright draft.


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * The current version of the article is the draft that is linked in the previous statement.

Lead

 * Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content updated by Cboka.
 * The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.
 * The lead does a great job in briefly describing the article's main sections. Each part of it seems to be a very short summary of the later parts of the article.
 * All of the content in the lead seems to be explored more in later sections of the article. The one thing that is mentioned in the lead that I don't think is mentioned in later sections is Wright's clothing brand.
 * The lead is detailed but it still remains concise.

Content

 * Yes, all of the content added is directly related to Mars Wright and his art and background.
 * Yes, all of the sources were published within the last five years so they are all relatively up-to-date.
 * None of the content that is included seems to be unnecessary. All of the content included fits.
 * Yes, the article deals with Wikipedia's equity gaps by bringing attention to underrepresented communities, specifically queer artists.

Tone and Balance

 * All of the added content is neutral.
 * There are no claims that seem to be heavily biased towards a particular position and none seem to be over or underrepresented.
 * The content does not seem persuasive at all. It all serves to provide information about Mars Wright and his art.

Sources and References

 * The sources included vary in levels of reliability but all of the content is connected to some type of reliable source.
 * Yes, the content does accurately reflect what the sources say. The article right now has every statement cited - besides the last sentence under the "Life on Mars" section which can be easily fixed.
 * The sources chosen are thorough and provide enough information for the article to give a well-rounded overview of Wright and his work.
 * Yes, the sources are current.
 * Most of the sources seem to be written by women which addresses the issue of people often only citing works written by men. However, I am not sure if the works include authors of different racial, ethnic, or class backgrounds.
 * None of the currently included sources are peer-reviewed, and I have been unable to find any myself, so the articles included seem to be the most reputable ones that currently exist about Wright.
 * All of the links work.

Organization

 * Yes, all of the content added is well-written and concise. There are also links included wherever possible which I find very helpful.
 * The content does not have any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * I really like how the content is broken down. The sections do not overlap and they all provide insight into Wright's work.

For New Articles Only Criteria

 * I do think the article fully meets Wikipedia's notability requirements because all of the sources seem reliable and are independent of the subject. None of them seem to be journal articles but that is probably because none have been written on Wright.
 * The list of sources is six sources long which seems to be sufficient enough to give a good overview of Wright and his work. The article is very concise and informative as it exists right now.
 * Yes, this article does follow the patterns of other similar articles and the outline we were given.
 * The content currently provided has given a lot of information about Mars Wright and his work so the article is more complete now even though it is only a draft right now.
 * The content right now is very informative and detailed. Nearly every sentence in the article is attributed to a source and can be checked.
 * The content could be improved by ensuring every statement is connected to a source if possible and possibly including more sources if there are any available.