User:EdgarL327/Rafael Mijares Alcérreca/Ibarrap Peer Review

Hi Edgar!

LEAD


 * 1) Yes, it reflects the new added content.
 * 2) Yes, it is concise and clear.
 * No, it does not briefly mention the article's sections.
 * No, it does not.
 * 1) The LEAD is concise.

CONTENT


 * 1) Yes, the content is relevant.
 * 2) Yes, it is up-to-date.
 * No, all content belongs.
 * 1) Yes, this article deals with historically underrepresented groups.

TONE & BALANCE


 * 1) Yes, the content is neutral.
 * No, there are no heavily biased claims.
 * No, the viewpoints seem balanced to me.
 * No, it's only informative and not persuasive.

SOURCES & REFERENCES


 * 1) Yes, all content comes from reliable sources.
 * 2) Based on the sources I was able to access without making purchases, yes: everything was supported by the sources.
 * 3) Yes, many of them go into depth about the topic while only one or two are short and concise.
 * 4) Yes, the sources are current.
 * 5) The sources are heavily picked from historically marginalized groups.
 * 6) There are other sources available, but not as credible as the sources used in this draft.
 * 7) Yes, all links worked fine.

ORGANIZATION


 * 1) Yes, the content is clear and easy to read.
 * 2) I would reword the third sentence of the fourth paragraph, it's a little confusing. Furthermore, try not to start any sentences with "So" as it is improper english. Also, make sure to add the date on when he was awarded knighthood in the first sentence of the last paragraph.
 * 3) I feel that the content can be better organized and broken down to sub-sections. I had trouble with this at first, as well, so I just looked at several ot her Wikipedia pages to get a better idea on how to organize mine!

IMAGES & MEDIA


 * 1) There are no images or media.

NEW ARTICLES


 * 1) Yes, it is supported by at least 2-3 reliable sources.
 * 2) Yes, in addition to articles used as sources, there are websites and books. Perhaps find a video, if you can, to use as a source.
 * No, there needs to be more headings, images, and media in the article to reflect other published Wikipedia articles.
 * 1) Yes, it contains links to other Wikipedia articles.

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS


 * 1) Yes, the article is more complete now with the added content.
 * 2) The strengths the content adds to the article is clear, concise information about this lesser - known artist and informs the reader on who this person is.
 * 3) The content can be improved with added media, images, headings, sections, and sub-sections.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


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