User:JudyWen/Vally Wieselthier: she/her, Austrian, 1895-1945/MDesouza02 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? (JudyWen)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JudyWen/Vally_Wieselthier:_she/her,_Austrian,_1895-1945/Bibliography?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_bibliography

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
I think that the first three paragraphs which I am assuming is the lead is very long and a bit overly detailed. Maybe to make it more concise you could consider breaking it up and/or taking some of that information and dispersing it into your other sections. I also think that you should include an introductory sentence that describes the artist rather than starting with her birth and death date.

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
I think that the content is very good as you go into a lot of topics and information about her life. Again, I think that a lot of the information that you included in your lead could be dispersed into your content paragraphs especially the smaller ones like early life.

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
I think your content is mostly neutral! There are a few words you used to describe her work that I think may come across as biased but overall I think its great!! Your balance is a little off since your lead paragraphs are more content heavy than your actual content paragraphs

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
I'm not sure about your sources because every time I attempted to click a link to check it took me back to the wikipedia dashboard.

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
I think your sections are organized well based on the titles and how you have separated most of them into time periods from her life.

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
I think if you can then a picture of the artist would be nice but completely understandable if you can't find one!!

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 meets all of the requirements.

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
I think this is a really great article and it shows that you put a lot of work into it! I think with a few minor edits then it should be good to go! Just like balancing out the information throughout the article rather than most of the content being included in the lead. Also your draft right now is in your Bibliography page instead of your sandbox which is why it took me so long to find it so just be aware of that! Great job! :)