User:Ivanm1234/The Blue Room (Valadon)/Hannahbowen1998 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/users/Ivanm1234

Ivanm1234


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ivanm1234/The_Blue_Room_%28Valadon%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * The Blue Room (Valadon)

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead was already nicely written with no clear room for improvement, so it wasn’t necessary for them to attempt updating it.

Content


 * Is the content added up-to-date and relevant to the topic?
 * Absolutely, there is nothing that feels disjointed or needless that the author added to the previous version of the article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think the only thing that feels lacking is more information about the artists and how they contributed to society or art history.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the most significant changes in the added content was the description section. They gave a description of each element in the painting, instead of a general overview like the previous version. They even describe how objects in the painting interact/ are oriented in relation to one another. The sandbox version goes into even more detail, some that fringes on interpretation instead of description, but it is effective enough to allow the reader to perfectly visualize the work without needing to see it.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * As previously mentioned, towards the end of the description section in the sandbox draft, the author starts leaning into interpretation behind the piece instead of what we can visually observe. For example the author states, “Instead of an overtly beautiful depiction of the female figure with visuals of breasts, flowing hair, or a grand, natural setting, it subverts the male oriented, idealized female figure for one grounded in the real world.” Although I agree with this point, it could be argued so it doesn’t fall into a descriptive category.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The Social Circumstances section does fringe on persuasion in the beginning, but I think the author adds more cited information that solidifies their position as correct. The only thing that would significantly strengthen their point would be cited opinions from the artist that reflect the author's point.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, besides a source with the artist's opinion of the works intention and concrete examples of the social context and how it shifted. Those examples would just improve the article, but they are not necessary.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?
 * Yes, the author used appropriate sources for the information they added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the author even added a bibliography with a description of what the sourced work and context.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors?
 * The source material appears to be diverse, both in who its written by and the type of source.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All links work and are relevant to the material.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Absolutely, I had no issues reading it and I have ADHD so the bar is pretty high for me. My only gripe is that certain sections could be condensed or should have multiple paragraphs. Such as the social norms section, I think the first three sentences could be synthesized into a single sentence without losing any context. I’m a journalism major so I could be biased, but article paragraphs shouldn’t be longer than four lines. It can turn readers away and make the article look congested.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The author didn’t add new sections, but the content added/ updated in the existing sections is purely beneficial to the effectiveness of the article. Besides my previous critique of examples of interpretations in the description section, I think the direction the author is going is good. The author could even add an interpretation section if they wanted to. The sandbox draft also has a, “Subversion of established art techniques,” and a Legacy section that hasn’t been added to. I am curious to see where they go with it.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the content added by the author in the description section significantly improves the quality of the article. If a person with a visual impairment listened to/ read this article they (hopefully) would be able to understand the visual elements confidently enough to discuss them or add their own interpretations of the work. Once the sandbox sections are added to, I think this article would feel totally complete or without any glaring need for improvement.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Please refer to my early critiques about fringing on interpretation and distancing yourself from potential bias in the social circumstances section.