User:Daniellemuniz/User:Vnepell/Kamalky Laureano/Daniellemuniz Peer Review

General info
Vnepell
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Vnepell/Kamalky Laureano
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Kamalky Laureano

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There are sentences that have been removed from the existing wikipedia article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does include an introductory sentence that describes the article's topic, however, more information should be added. There are only two sentences. Information about the artist's work should be included.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead has a brief description of the artist but not of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the information in the lead is already in the existing article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content seems to be up-to-date by looking at the sources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is content that is missing such as awards and recognition. More content should be added to each section.
 * 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 deal with underrepresented topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content is neutral. It does not come from a biased opinion.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, I do not see any biases in the article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content does not persuade the reader to any biases.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all the new content is backed up by a secondary source of information.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) The content accurately reflects the cited sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources used in the article are good.
 * Are the sources current? They are current sources. The oldest source is from 2010.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources are written by different authors.
 * 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.) Many of the sources used are random websites. Peer reviewed articles would be good to include.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is well-written. It is clear and concise. There needs to be more content added to each section.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? In the education section, the writer states: "In 2002 Laureano attended the National School of Fine Arts. Then was later accepted into Altos De Chavon School of Design in the Dominican Republic in 2004." These sentences can be put into one sentence.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the content added is well-organized and covers the major points of the topic.

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

* No images were added.


 * 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?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

* This is not a new article.


 * 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? Yes, there is more information added to the article. The article is definitely more complete; however, more information needs to be added to each section. I think the writer intends to do so but this is only the rough draft.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content is that the writing is clear and easy to read.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content added is good, it just needs more information. The lead needs to be expanded. I would also add more artworks and specify which work is being discussed instead of a general talk about the artist's works.