User:GreenMoose37/Daswanth/Determinedmoth Peer Review

General info
GreenMoose37
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Daswanth
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:GreenMoose37/Daswanth :
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
This is a really great start to your draft! I know that there are probably not many sources about your topic but you seem to have taken advantage of the resources that you do have! I have a couple critiques:

To begin, make sure to pay attention to grammar and spelling mistakes (typos), notably the first sentence of the section titled “Life and Works.” This was the only typo I caught.

Regarding the lead section, although it was very short (one sentence long), it was straight to the point. Perhaps when and if you gather more information, this will be lengthened but for what you have, it is a good lead.

Regarding the structure and the balance, you have three sections: lead, the “Life and Works” section, and the “Personal Life” section. There seems to be an intersection between the latter two sections. Perhaps changing these sections by separating them into “Life” and “Works” would be beneficial. This way, the two sections would be more balanced.

Concerning neutrality, your draft seemed unbiased for the most part. There was one section which could be read as subjective. For example, when you refer to al-Samad’s work as “conservative” or “traditional” and Daswanth’s work as “imaginative,” the readers do not know according to whom these statements are made. This may be combated by referencing the sources directly after these statements so the readers know that these statements are not made according to the opinion of the Wikipedia editor. Perhaps expanding about what particular features of their works are “traditional” versus “imaginative” may be beneficial as well.

Your draft had a lot of clarity. There was one part when you referred to his “distinctive” style of painting (free application of wet pigment?), which I was slightly confused about. Perhaps expand upon this more. Furthermore, “distinctive” may also be a subjective descriptor.

Finally, for citations, most of them are reliable sources. However, when clicking on reference number 4, it would not allow me to access the link saying that the site is not secure. If the link is broken, you may want to fix it. If, however, the site is not secure, you may want to check if it is a credible source.

Overall great start and very informative!!