User:Jackemm000/Adolf Hitler's Art Collection/HHubertK 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)
 * Jackemm000 and Tayleraff4
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jackemm000/Adolf_Hitler's_Art_Collection

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
The lead is currently only one sentence long, so it will have to be updated with more information as the editing process continues. The current introductory sentence is good. The sentence is concise and not overly detailed. It also obviously does not include any information that is not present in the article, but it will have to be updated with a description of the article's contents eventually. The grammar is good, and the style is okay too.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content that currently exists on the article seems relevant to the topic. As this article is about history, there is no issue about it being up-to-date. There is no issue with content that does not belong,

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
The content of this article contains a bit of bias, which could be removed through different word choice. For example, the line in "Hitler's Connection With the Arts" that says "Hitler started to become what everyone around the world knows his as" can be worded differently to reflect a more neutral and objective viewpoint, similar to that of an encyclopedia. Also, the section "Monuments Men" contains a lot of pro-Allied Forces and anti-Hitler bias, which should be removed for a more objective and neutral tone. For instance, "Fortunately, the Monuments Men were able to reach the mine in time and prevent the destruction of the works stored there." The word "fortunately" should be omitted to create that neutral tone. It is difficult with topics such as this to avoid biased tone, because the generally accepted view of Adolf Hitler and his system is negative. Despite this, however, the article should be neutral in tone,

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There is a nice variety of sources used in the article. They are all relevant and contribute effectively. The links are also active, and it is not difficult to track down the sources.

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 major sections of the article are good, and they reflect major topics well. I would probably recommend breaking the section "Hitler's Collection" into subheadings for each piece of art. There are minor grammatical errors throughout the text, such as capitalization, apostrophes, and syntax, but these are minor. They can be solved easily with a simple proofread, and they do not take away from the effectiveness of the article.

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?

Images and media evaluation
The images included with this article are great. They are relevant to the article, and they provide great context and visual aids to better understand the written content of the article. They are also well-captioned. The layout of the text and images is well-done too.

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?

New Article Evaluation
The article topic is notable, and there are multiple good sources. There are likely a number of infoboxes that could be added to enhance the article. There is good use of links to other articles. The more links are included, the better.

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 article is well-done so far. The sources are good, and the sections and content of the article effectively represent a wide range of information that is available on the topic. The images enhance the article, and there are numerous links to other articles. The article does contain minor grammar issues. It is still a little bit incomplete, but that should not be an issue as more content is added over the next little while. The main issue with the article so far is its tone, as it is not neutral and objective enough to reflect Wikipedia's policy of content neutrality. This issue can be solved by carefully examining word choice and syntax to make sure that there isn't a bias towards any particular viewpoint. Overall, the article is very good, and it is looking like the final product should turn out great.