User:EddieBY/Isabel de Bohun Lockyer: she/her, British, 1895-1982/Raehaley 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? (provide username) EddieBY
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:EddieBY/Isabel de Bohun Lockyer: she/her, British, 1895-1982

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 article has a very strong lead that concisely portrays the content of the article in the first couple of sentences. If anything, maybe some of the more detailed information in the lead could be moved to a section of its own. Also, the final sentence is maybe a little bit of a stretch as far as attributing artistic inspirations with the specific citation provided. Maybe you could find a different source about her travel?

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
All the content is relevant to the article and appears to up to date. I wouldn't say that there is anything missing, but more information could definitely be useful. Especially since its an article on an underrepresented artist I know its hard to find information, so I think you've done well with what was provided in your reference section.

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
Information is presented with an even tone and is devoid of overt bias. Again, that last sentence in the lead section is a little tricky, because while it is neutral it maybe isn't totally supported? Otherwise the balance is good.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All the links seem to work and direct to reliable sources. Seems to be comprised of all available sources.

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 article is well written and concise. Maybe some of the information in the lead could be put into a new section to break up the article a little bit and to add more body? Seems like some of the information would be good for a section on the artists background and works maybe.

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 media yet, but adding an image could be another good way to add some structure.

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?

New Article Evaluation
Appears to meet notability requirements and has a good amount of references. Could use some section headings if you find information to create new sections. It looks like maybe there are some places in the article that would be a good opportunity for linking to other articles or sites, maybe for Claude Flight (idk if this link goes to the right claude??) or the grosvenor school. An infobox also work for some basic info on the artist.

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
This is a good article! Especially to be newly created. You've have made good use of the available information. It also seems like any other information you find will fit well into the existing article. I appreciate the section on her list of works, and you have a lot of solid references.