User:Ggaby99/Virginia Tillou: she/her, American, 1906-1995/Morganic365 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? Ggaby99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ggaby99/Virginia Tillou: she/her, American, 1906-1995

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:
The Lead provides all the necessary information for an introduction: the artist's name, their birthday and death date, and what they were known for. The only aspect that is not mentioned in the rest of the article is Tillou's abstract work, only her mural paintings, still lives, and portraits are mentioned in a later section. I may suggest to change the phrasing "...mural, paintings, abstracts and still lives and portraits" to "...mural paintings, abstract art, still lives, and portraits," since the 'and-s' in the original phrasing could be seen as a bit repetitive. I might also suggest putting the artist's full name in this section, rather than the Early Life and Education section. I have seen in other Wikipedia articles that they put the full name of the person that the article focuses on. Also, depending on how much discourse there is on her, it may be interesting to include if she had an impact on the art world in Lead section.

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:
As I mentioned in the previous section, it may be good to put Tillou's full name in the first section. Also, restating her birthday may not be necessary. In the Major works and Notable exhibits section, the first sentence seems to be incomplete.

You do a great job with linking people/places to other already-existing Wikipedia articles, but I have a few suggestions as to some other "links" that can be included:


 * mural paintings
 * Centerville, Pennsylvania (not sure which Centerville she's from)
 * Buffalo, New York
 * Edwin Dickinson
 * University at Buffalo

Upon initial research on Tillou, I found this website: https://www.tracetilloustudios.com/, which is the website to Tillou's grandson who is an artist. It may be interesting to include in a "legacy" section. But then, that is completely up to you!

Also, it's understandable as to why you made a section titled Family Life and Death, since both topics have little information bout them, however it seems a bit jarring to put them together and it may be best to separate them, even though each section will only be a sentence long.

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:
The content is very neutral and only states the facts. There are no claims that are heavily biased, everything included is clear and easy to understand. Great job!

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:
To help with organization, it may help to include the references under a new Heading. At the moment, they are right under the Family life and Death section, which may be a bit confusing to the eye. All the sources have links, which all work. The sources that do have dates were created in the late 1990s, so I am assuming there have been any recent discourse about Tillou.

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
I've made note of some suggestions for grammatical changes in the "Content" section of this peer review. But overall, the content is concise, clear, and easy to read. The sections make sense and follow the time line of Tillou's life.

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:
At the moment, there are no images, so I wish you luck in finding any!

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:
The article is has 2 reliable secondary sources about Tillou, the other 2 references only contain a few basic notes about her. Since this is an underrepresented artist, there are very few sources about her. The article does not yet have an infobox, which may be good to include as it truly helps to capture the 'Wikipedia' feeling. The links in the references section are accessible for those who want to read, but the information from them are pretty much all included in this Wikipedia article.

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
The article is very clearly written and very neutral, and for that I commend you! I found it rather difficult not to include "emotion" and to just tell the facts as they are, but you did an excellent job. I also commend you for creating an article with such little information out there on Tillou. I've included several suggestions for you in this peer review, but please don't feel pressured to follow through with them, only if you also believe it will benefit your article. You've created sections that a very well organized and easy to follow. I suggest to look over the article again for small grammatical errors and to think about adding an "infobox" section, which I think will really make your article look official. Again, great work!