User:Echoi86/Queer art/B.raven222 Peer Review

-On my initial reading of the article, I noticed that the introduction section is a bit convoluted, and contains some run-on sentences. I think the lead can be expanded to make more sense, and also include some talking points from the body of the article.

- The content seems to be on topic. However, the content in many sections is a bit vague and short. It would be beneficial to add more information to the shorter sections like "Criticisms" and "Queer art and public spaces"

- Many sections of the article do not flow nicely. It may be beneficial to change the structure of some paragraphs and sentences to make them more concise, especially from the lead section, and the last two sections.

- I noticed a neutral tone throughout the article; I did not feel like I was being persuaded. This doesn't need to be improved.

- some of the links in the reference section do not work.

-Many sources are from LGBTQ+ identified organizations or individuals.

- There could be more current sources, and more current examples/references of modern queer art throughout the article.

-I find the edits in the sandbox to be beneficial. I like the mention of individuals outside of the US and UK; perhaps the article would benefit from more examples of non-western queer artists.

-The mention of the erasure of the radical nature of queer art was an important addition as well.

- In all, I think this article still needs some polishing, but the additions that you have made are contributing to the quality of the piece.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)