User:G-Anne-Serenity/User:Sromo314/José Damián Ortiz de Castro/G-Anne-Serenity Peer Review

General info
Sromo314
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Sromo314/José Damián Ortiz de Castro
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * José Damián Ortiz de Castro
 * José Damián Ortiz de Castro

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.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - The lead has been updated to reflect the new content. However, this information is under 'Biography'. This can be difficult depending on how much information each category should have and how much information is available about the artist. If the information about the artist is scarce, then maybe the first sentence can be the lead, and the rest of the information in the biography section should stay the same.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - The lead/first sentence is concise and clearly describes the article's topic, which is the artist in question and their accomplishments.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - The lead doesn't have a brief description of the article's major sections. It only has the information discussed previously. To fix this, the school he went to should be mentioned.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - The lead presents the proper type of information that is explained in detail throughout the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - The lead is concise, and it's only lacking in a small amount of information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Content added, such as his parentage, education, and details about his work is all relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, it is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - Perhaps the information is hard to find or missing from online sources, but the school that the artist attended isn't mentioned. In fact, it's left blank (There's also no citation). There's also missing information in the Architecture section, that's left with a placeholder. I suggest that the missing information should be fixed and cited properly.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - The equity gaps that the article deals with is Mexican artists and the work they produced. This information isn't well known, and the added content is helping in bringing it to light.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - Adjectives used such as 'great' and 'exceptional' aren't neutral terms, but if the sources used state these things about said artist, then this can be tweaked to state that he is considered/remembered as having these positive qualities.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - The accomplishments of the artist are positively recognized or remembered inherently, so the bias isn't very strong. Like I said earlier, specific positive opinions toward the artist should be recorded.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - I don't think that there are views that are overrepresented or underrepresented. The sources and their corresponding information seems to be even. I could only say that I wish there was more information for each category, and that the citations need to be fixed a little. From what I can tell, finding information on this artist seems to be very difficult, so I'm hoping that my peer can find a way to solve this particular problem. It really isn't easy, I know.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - Other than the aforementioned word/context changes and additions, no this isn't that much of an issue.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - All new content is backed up by reliable secondary sources, though I can't tell much about the specifics because none of the sources listed contain page number. I don't know if this is exactly required for this assignment (I put in specific page numbers for my artist just in case), but I think that it would be best if specific page numbers were included for convenience sake. This would mean more references listed, but I doubt that that would count for the 10 source minimum.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) - I can't tell for the fifth and sixth sources because I can't access the information. For the seventh source, I found that the difficulty in specifying the architectural work that the artist worked on is found in how he worked on the facade of the Cathedral of Mexico. That should be described in the placeholder in the Architecture section. For the remaining sources, the content does reflect what the cited sources say.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Finding proper sources and material for this artist is difficult, so I think that the sources that my peer found are substantial/helpful. I hope that my peer can find more information to complete the requirements to the best of their ability.
 * Are the sources current? - Some sources are older than others, but I think that they're good sources because of they're accuracy on the topic.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Some of the authors that are diverse are already included in the existing article, so I think the difficulty lies in how there isn't as much reliable/well supported information on the artist as there should be. The authors included don't seem to be marginalized individuals, so more sources might alleviate this problem.
 * 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.) - It seems that my peer ran into the same problem that I ran into. Many of the available sources are in Spanish, which isn't good to put on the English page for the artist. I've been wondering if some non-english sources can be added for my article and my peer's article, but that's strange territory.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - All of the links work, there's only one link that's in the red. There must be some difficulty with it due to the fact that it's the only source on here that goes to a webpage. I hope that this can be fixed.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - This article is well organized and easy to read. All of the information is matcher to their correct categories, apart from the need for a lead.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - The content added has some grammatical and spelling errors. There were times when I was reading it when I found that there were missing sentences and capitalized words that shouldn't be capitalized.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, though I think there should be more categories. I can't think of any specifics though. I also think that the Architecture section in particular should have more details. This would help in the required amount of information that our articles need to have. I know that this helped me on my article.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media - My peer didn't add any images or media.

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


 * The draft that I'm reviewing is not for a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - The existing article is a stub, and it's probably because it's difficult to find a great deal of information for the topic. I think that my peer did a good job in improving the quality of the article, and I hope that they can find more sources to make the article more substantial.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - The new content is concise yet detailed. It's straight to the point and well organized.
 * How can the content added be improved? - The added content can be improved by having the spelling and grammar fixed, more information and sources, and specific page numbers (for the sake of convenience/if required by the professor). I don't know if the professor really wants images, but it could be a good addition. I know there isn't a great deal of depth and additional context for architectural parts of cathedrals as there would be for individual art pieces, but if such things can be explored, I encourage it.