User:Georgcortes/Robert Stiegler/Kstone3 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

 * (Georgcortes)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Robert Stiegler

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Yes, the references made in the Lead are also cited at the bottom of article
 * The Lead includes an introductory sentence that sums up primarily the origins of the artists style but not so much an introduction of his relevance or legacy as artist
 * The Lead briefly covers the rest of the article such as films and recognition
 * Yes. Th lead mentions artists that the artist studied under and studied with that are not mentioned throughout the rest of article
 * The Lead is concise, however the first sentence runs on a little too long

Content
Guiding questions:


 * All content is relevant say perhaps the mention of the other artist Stiegler studied with in the Lead. There is no mention of their relevance to Stiegler as an artist/ filmmaker/ photographer
 * Content is up to date with more citation links
 * No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * The content remains neutral
 * There are no biased claims toward the artist.
 * Perhaps if there is any further record of Stiegler's career as a professor, a mention of (if any) reputable student/ pupils under his tutelage.
 * There is no persuasive dialogue in the written article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * All sources are from a gallery that exhibited the artists work or retrospect, and are a literature or document directly from an associated gallery.
 * There are a thorough amount of sources but the individual sources seem to lack thoroughness. Ex: an article, review, or retrospect. (News, newspaper, scholar mentions, etc.)
 * The sources are current and recent in year (2010s)
 * The Links work. About half the sources are not links.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Content is clear. Some sentences such as the first Lead are a long.
 * no grammatical errors detected
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * There are images included
 * No images in article
 * No images in article
 * There are no laid out images within the article. Only when you hover over certain linked words, names or fraises.

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * The overall quality has a medium improvement. While some tone and grammatical improvement were made, where there are additions of information or sources, the sources are not scholarly enough.
 * The strengths is an overall attempt to bring more relevance to the artist legacy through archive and exhibition of his work.
 * More scholarly sources and written responses and reviews of the artist's work.