User:JBmerlin/Joanna Mary Boyce/Themediocrerainbow 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? JBmerlin
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:JBmerlin/sandbox

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
Yes, the lead does seem like it reflects the new content added to the article. The introductory sentence clearly describes the article's topic, but feels a little clunky due to the inclusion of the artist's alternative names. The lead does not touch on the sections 'Early Life and Education' or 'Legacy.'

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?

Content evaluation
All the content is relevant to the topic. Some sources seem a little old (a handful from 1980), but considering the period in which this artist was practicing, the age of these sources seems fine.

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
Overall, the tone of the article is neutral. However, the section 'Final Years' is overwhelmingly pro-Boyce. I don't know anything about this artist and admittedly very little about the Pre-Raphaeilites and affiliate artists, so it very well may be that negative opinions about Boyce's work was scant.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Sources look reliable and, considering the number listed, also seems comprehensive and reflective of the literature available about the artist.

The link to the source from Grove Art Online does not work. Other links I randomly tried did work.

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
The article is well organized and is well written. I think the final sentence in 'Final Years' would be better suited in 'Legacy' if constructed to focus less on such statements arising because of the artist's death.

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?

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The work done definitely made an overall improvement to the article. I especially appreciate the nuance in the artist's relationship to the Pre-Raphaelites. More information can be added to all sections, but based on the 'Planned Edits' section, the writer is already on it. Over all, great stuff!