User:Jess Ishikawa/Spinola Book of Hours/Megg jones 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? Jess Ishikawa
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jess_Ishikawa/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead has been updated including more information than the original article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it briefly mentions that articles major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, but only because it is unfinished, I think the lead has a good base of information that will hopefully continue on throughout the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think it is concise, I think the information about the expert from the J. Paul Getty museum could either just be cited after the artists he states, or saved for a different section in the article.

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? I would suggest some more main headings added to the outline to get started.

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? Maybe if youre going to quote someone on the artists contributions, include others opinions as well.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

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? no, need more sources
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

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? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No added sections yet

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
 * 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? Yes, youre on the right track!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Good, concise, necessary information added to lead.
 * How can the content added be improved? Some info could be saved for the other main headings instead of being in the lead.

Overall evaluation
Jess, I think you have a good start to your article. I can see the information you have provided unfolding well as the rest of the article progresses. I would suggest maybe a few more main headings to give the overall article better structure and organization. Also, I think that your article needs some more sources that are up to date and reliable.

Overall though, I think you have a good idea in your head and a plan of what you intend to do. I like how you added more miniature pictures onto the article, and your lead is written well with more information than the original article.