User:Ebilligmeier/Informalism/Hannahbowen1998 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ebilligmeier


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ebilligmeier/Informalism?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Informalism

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I don’t believe the lead was updated, however, it doesn’t need any improvement with plenty of references and hyperlinks that relate to the topic.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead includes the era it first became popular, what inspired the movement, and a short breakdown of what is considered informationalism.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the author hasn’t moved over the content they wrote in their sandbox but the lead doesn’t mention the political section or the improvement section mentioned in the sandbox.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * There hasn’t been any content added from the sandbox draft, but the content within the draft is relevant to contextualizing the movement. It is still a bit vague and needs more hyperlinks for the artists and to expand on what political powers were being challenged and how they specifically did it through their art.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?
 * No, there is a dispute on the neutrality of the main article. The content in the sandbox draft reads as neutral so if the neutrality issue is fixed on the main article it’ll be fine.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Under the Venezuela section it would be beneficial to explain what the author meant by, “used Informalist art to respond to the huge change in political structure that their country was going through at the time,” and specifically how they used the art to challenge authority.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, I believe the author delivered the information in a straightforward and factual manner.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There is room for more sources, especially with the artists mentioned and how art was used during that time to challenge authority. The sources on the main article need some updating, the second reference takes you to a page that no longer exists so it needs to be replaced.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I think there’s room for improvement, but by no means is it unacceptable sources for the information added. All the references mentioned come from official museum or exhibition websites. I think there is potential for peer reviewed material, especially for the history section.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources added are current, however, the ones on the main article could be more current and diverse.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, there is a picture in the main article that is relevant to the topic. I believe the author plans to change it to the one in their sandbox, which I believe is a more interesting example of informationalism. It is also well captioned and contains all the information needed.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The photo in the main article is not well captioned and only mentions the artist with no other information. If the photo is kept, it needs to be updated with all the required information.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The photo in the main article is very small. I think it would benefit the article if it could be enlarged.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Once the author adds in the sandbox content and expands more on the political climate of that time, it will feel nearly complete. I think that they have enough information (besides the previously mentioned historical context) but it could be improved by intertwining the information in the sandbox with the information in the main article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Understanding the culture behind a movement helps to understand the significance to history and culture as a whole. I like the direction they’re going by also including how it was seen as an improvement on abstraction.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I’m not sure if an entire section of how it was an improvement of abstraction is necessary, I think it can be condensed into a couple sentences for background information. Also I think that the informationist painters section could be cut down drastically. It feels distracting and doesn’t add anything, maybe just keep the ones mentioned in the article with a couple of their most famous works.