User:Hwendel/Sénèque Obin: he/him, Haitian, 1893-1977/Wikiwarsaw 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? (provide username)  HWendel
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hwendel/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?  n/a
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? no, maybe state outright that he's a Haitian artist. You do state this eventually, but a concise intro sentence would be nice.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? You bring it up that he was an innovator in the Haitian artistic renaissance in the intro but hardly reference it in the rest of the article. Maybe you can expand on their innovations during the Haitian artistic renaissance later on in your article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it's good!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes—the Haitian people

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no, seems very balanced.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? nope

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? There's one link (#5) that doesn't work.  Links #1 and #6 are the same...wasn't sure if this is a mistake or not.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Nope
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Under background, I feel like you could potentially categorize it to more specific sections (about the organizations he was part of or the politics he participated in), but this is just an idea, I also think it works just fine to organize it as "background."

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes
 * Are images well-captioned? yes, I'd say just make sure you're consistent in how you add the date to the title because you add it differently in each caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

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:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yeah looks good, I'd say just include a bit more on his contributions to the Haitian artistic renaissance and you're good.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Very specific and concise.
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe if you split up the info into more specific categories.