User:Iorloff/User:Kierafitz/sandbox/Iorloff 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?
 * Kierafitz
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kierafitz/Mela Muter

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The Lead has not been updated, it could include that she painted mostly symbolic landscapes and portraits.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead could be made more concise by removing the parentheses and cross icon as the symbol for her death. It should be rewritten to note her real name, pseudonym, birth and date place and death within the sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it provides her pseudonym and name, her origins, as well as points out that she was a painter and where she spent most of her career.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all information present in the Lead was present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is slightly too concise and should be expanded by removing the parentheses and rewritten as a full sentence without the use of symbols.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * All of the content added is relevant to the topic. It adds to her early and later life and discusses how it influenced her art.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * All content added is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no content missing within the areas that are being discussed, nor are there major periods from the artists life missing within the article content. There is also no content featured that does not belong.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added is neutral, certain claims that are made about the interpretations of the artist's works are backed up with quotes by the artist herself.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The claim about the artist's family being "morally well read" could be slightly biased as the term "moral" could be understood differently given the readers interpretation. I would clarify whether this was implying they were intellectual or spiritually/ religiously devout.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The viewpoint of her contemporaries, the viewers or other members of the artistic circle, is underrepresented. Information on the reception of her works and artistic style could be added.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the added content is neutral and does not persuade the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The first paragraph under "Early Life" as well as the first paragraph in "Later Life" need citations. Unless all of the content being discussed was found in the sources featured in the following paragraphs; still I would add citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are thorough and vary in format, reflecting available literature on her life experiences and artistic endeavors.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are current, however the magazine article from Shalom Magazine does not provide a date or any publication information through the link.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links work except for the Gill Perry article that only includes the ISBN.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content added is well-written but I am unsure how it will be incorporated within the already existing article. A majority of the added content is also present in the original article and there is no indication of whether the added is meant to supplement the existing or if Kiera is rewriting the entire page.
 * How is the added information on the artist's painting style and time and paris going to be placed around the already existing "Plant" section. Also, some of the content in this section overlaps with the added content on her portraits.
 * Much of the content in the added section "Mela Muter" is then restated in the following added section "Early Life," and is also already present in under "Life" in the original article. It should be noted where this added content will fit within the already existing article.
 * Some of the mentioned people and places should be linked to their respective wikipedia articles.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Under "Early Life" it should be "Maria's family was" not "Maria's family were" and "The Klingsland family was"
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The added content is well-organized but information in the section "Mela Mutter" is repeated in the following section. Also, it is not organized in way that explains how it will fit with the existing article.

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, both images are captioned
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, both images are in the public domain
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, the images correspond to the content of their respective sections.

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?
 * Yes, the added content improves the overall quality of the article by expanding on the artist's personal life and demonstrates how it influenced her artistic career.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added offers concise outline of the artist's personal life, then is followed by a section further explaining her artistic style. The section on Muter's "Artistic Style and Ideals" is the strongest content added as it elaborates on her role as an artist rather than just stating the work she did.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content added can be improved by explaining how it is going to fit within the already existing article. Some of the existing article is poorly written and is rewritten more properly in the added content, so can be replaced. However, there are also some elements that should be kept and incorporated into the added content.

Overall evaluation
The added content is extremely well written and concise, and the sections are broken down in a very easy-to-read chronology of the artist's life. The major issue with the added content is that it does not explain how it will be incorporated into the already existing article.