User:Ckthayer/Portrait miniature/Caitlinlenox 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? Ckthayer
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Portrait Miniature draft

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
This editor has not yet added any content to the lead, but she has drafted significant content for the body of the article. However, because the lead is merely an overview, it does not seem necessary to alter the lead with the content she has added, which mainly regards specific contexts in which miniatures were created or used. The lead of the current article seems sufficient to encompass the new material that Cassie is adding

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content here is great! It really expands the contexts in which this style of portraiture was used. Some of the sources are a bit out of date--one is about 20 years old--but considering the specialized nature of the scholarship, I think it would be somewhat unreasonable to assume that all the sources be from only the last 5-10 years.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone is neutral and balanced. One section relies heavily on the discovery of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, but it takes care to present the information as coming from the work of that institution. The only possible detraction from the balance I see is that it relies heavily on a small number of source; a couple more sources could be included for better balance. Article is not persuasive, merely informative.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I think you need to check your second citation--it doesn't say which entry it refers to in Oxford Art Online and the link is broken! The rest of the sources seem to be legit, though it migh be nice to include a couple more sources, if possible, for the sake of balance.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The first three of your sections are well written and interesting, and I can easily see where they would fit in the structure of the current article. The last section, while it contains fascinating information, is a little harder to follow--it could use a gentle rewrite to clarify ideas and tighten up sentences. For instance, the sentences "Portrait miniatures were not always commemorated to carry the portraits of loved ones, many also carried miniatures of rulers and leaders they served. At times, these may have been an unpopular ruler and could have caused great harm to those caught with carrying the portraits and measures were taken to hide the identity of the subject", might be edited down to: "Portrait miniatures were not always made to commemorate loved ones; some also carried the likenesses of the rulers or leaders they served. If the ruler they served was unpopular, the owner of the miniature could be in danger if caught with the portrait miniature, and so measures were taken to hide the subject's identity" or something similar.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
No images or media currently included! Would love to see a pic of the costume overlay miniatures, but I assume that this sort of image does not currently exist in Wikicommons.

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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Great work, Cassie! This is an interesting and illuminating expansion on the subject you've chosen. I would recommend mostly just some basic copy editing (rewriting sentences for variety and brevity, making sure to capitalize proper nouns, i.e. "un-English", check citations), and perhaps finding a couple more sources to synthesize information from to provide a bit more balance to the topics presented.