User:Jxs2643/Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin/BeatriceVelline 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) Jxs2643
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jxs2643/Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There is no new lead added, but the original article's lead can be expanded upon to provide more specifics about Vodkin's style of artwork
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The original lead introduces the subject
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I think the lead can be more expansive and give more of an introduction into Vodkin's career
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the added information gives the reader a more detailed look into Vodkin's life and style of artwork
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the person is deceased and the information spans his life.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, the only suggestion would be to add more information if possible, but everything is relevant and clear.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article is about a Russian artist during the Soviet Union, which is a topic that can be often overlooked in conversations or studies of artwork.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there were no judgements made about the artist or his artwork.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, the content is factual and historical
 * 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, the sources are all credible
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources are very thorough and focused on the topic
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are all relatively recent, and because the figure is historical, there is not an urgent need for super contemporary sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I do not believe so, but the authors seem vested in Russian studies.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all the links work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the writing style is very concise and easy to read
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few places that punctuation and grammar can be improved, and the writing could be made more formal, but overall the writing is strong.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the topics make sense and are in logical succession

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images were added
 * 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? Yes, it helps strengthen the original article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The added content gives more context into the role and reception of the artwork within the Soviet government
 * How can the content added be improved? If there is more information available, then the article could be further expanded, especially on the personal life of Vodkin. Otherwise, it does a good job of providing an overview.