User:KimleeGalak/Gaetano Pesce/Mymit88 Peer Review

Gaetano Pesce : General info
Article assigned to: Iuliia Gilfanova, Auriane.cauchy, Emma Descheneaux
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Iuliia_Gilfanova/Gaetano_Pesce
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Gaetano Pesce

Evaluate the drafted changes
'''Coucou! Voici mon évaluation des pairs :'''

Lead

Guiding questions:

Guiding questions:
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, they made a small change to the lead. They seemed to have erased some information that was not back up by a good source.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the first sentence of the lead is quite well put :  Gaetano Pesce est né en en 1939 à La Spezia, en Italie. Il est architecte, peintre, designer, sculpteur et philosophe.  It allows the reader to quickly know that the article is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? This is an aspect your team can work on, because the lead doesn't really include a description of all the sections, like inspiration and style, or his awards.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? In the lead, it says that Pesce is also a philosopher, but I don't really see any information about it in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overall, the lead is concise, which is perfect for the format of the article.
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added in the sandbox seems to be relevant to the topic of Gaetano Pesce. They added information about his studies, the beginning of his career, his inspiration and style, and awards he won. Overall, the information added is well put and concise, and helps understand better the subject of Pesce.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? From what I can see in the sandbox, the sources used are relatively recent which is pretty good. The sources are from the last decade or so, which is pretty recent.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? After reading the draft article in their sandbox, I would say that the content added is in fact neutral. The information is clear and does not attempt to persuade me. Also, the details of Pesce's life are explain without a bias towards a particular position.

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content added is well-written and easy to read. The information is put in a concise way, which allows the reader to find information easily and quickly. The sentences are clear and they are not to long, which is perfect for the format of a Wikipedia article.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I didn't see any spelling errors, which is great, good job!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes they organized the content really well! They added different sections of information about Pesce, which helps organize the text. For example, under the bibliography section, they divided the text in sub categories like : studies, beginning of his work, inspiration and style.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? From what i can see in the sandbox, there's no image added to the article, which could be something to work on. The live article in Wiki doesn't have that many pictures, so adding more pictures to showcase Pesce's work could be interesting!

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, most of the sources I can see in the sandbox are reliable sources. Nevertheless, there is one source (the azure magazine) that I'm not sure if it's really a reliable source, since it's a magazine.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? Like mentioned before, From what I can see in the sandbox, the sources used are relatively recent which is pretty good. The sources are from the last decade or so, which is pretty recent.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Most of the sources listed in the sandbox seemed to have been written by men, so the no the sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links added to the sandbox do work, which is great!

- Myriam T.