User:JustBort/Innokenty Annensky/Rine02lessthan3 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:JustBort


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:JustBort/Innokenty Annensky


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Innokenty Annensky

Lead
The lead has been updated to more accurately reflect the course of Annensky's life and his career in academia, even though the work he openly produced was not the work he eventually became famous for. I think the article could be improved by following up on this initial mention of his career, but since he is mostly famous for his poetry this information may be hard to come by. The article could also have more content related to French symbolism and Annensky's influence on the post-Symbolist generation, both of which were touched on in the lead. There is also one phrase, "while the subtle music, ominous allusions, arcane vocabulary, the spell of minutely changing colors and odours were all his own" that could be elaborated on or worded in a more straightforward manner. That being said, the lead is concise and accurately reflects how the rest of the article discusses his semi-anonymity and lack of popularity during his life.

Content
JustBort has taken care to add relevant and accurate content, even correcting certain dates and pointing out some original research in the current version of the article. The only content I would consider missing is what I mentioned in the lead section.

Tone and Balance
The added content is mostly neutral and does not attempt to persuade the reader in any way. Some small phrases are a little biased and would benefit from editing, such as "His second book, Cypress Box, was much more important" and "For Annensky, life was...an unhappy nightmare." These phrases both appear to be uncited, and could also be combined with reference to a historian or scholar who had such opinions. I also think some criticism of Annensky would add to the richness of the article, but as he is rather unknown such criticism may be difficult to source.

Sources and References
Speaking of sources... all sources seem to be secondary! There are five separate sources with a variety of authors. While all links are clickable, some lead to sources that cannot be accessed unless one has a certain membership or money to purchase a certain journal or book--Source 3 is a prime example of this. Source 6, in particular, leads to another Wikipedia page related to the ISSN when clicked. Note that these source numberings are based on their numbers in the RefList. Some sources are by women, who have been historically underrepresented.

Organization
The article is concise and mostly clear with no spelling errors. Other than a confusing phrase I pointed out in the lead section, and a sentence that begins with "But..." in the poetic assessment section, everything looks good organization-wise.

Images and Media
No images or media have been added that were not already in the original article. I think a picture of one of Annensky's poems or manuscripts would be a nice touch, if any would be accessible.

Overall Impressions
The content added has helped the original article be more accurate, both in terms of quantitative data and the truth about Annensky's life and work. The content added is also helping push the article to become more unbiased. This content, which is largely in the lead section, can be improved by expanding into other sections. Small biased or confusing phrases and grammatical errors can be improved easily, as well as certain technical issues with some of the sources.