User:Kimmithequeen/Eugene Alfred/AlyssaOmohundro 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? (Kimmithequeen)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kikimontanoooo/sandbox

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:
The lead overall reflects relevant information and includes a good overview of what the article will entail. However, the lead includes short sentences that can be pushed together with other sentences to create a better flow through the reading and be more detailed. Also, make sure they cited sources are not word for word from the source but created with your own wording to avoid plagiarism.

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?

Content evaluation
Almost all of your links or sources cited were relevant and good sources. The only sources that may not be viewed as applicable to the article were numbers 9 and 12, I suggest possibly looking for some backup sources to replace those. Although most of your information is relevant, your paragraph contains many short sentences that can be combined to become stronger and create a more fluid tone when reading. Additionally, make sure when citing from your resources that you do not plagiarize. Some of your very first citations contain the exact same wording as what you wrote in your article. Those will be taken down and removed if you do not rephrase into your own words, but still great information.

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
Within the first header paragraph the word "successful" creates a tone that isn't neutral. I recommend replacing or removing the word just in case. I would also review the use of the word "following" in your second paragraph under header number two. Your artworks paragraph, the first one, contains very small spelling and grammar errors but the info is great, just revise (specifically the sentence with "intended in hopes").

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Almost all of your links or sources cited were relevant and good sources. The only sources that may not be viewed as applicable to the article were numbers 9 and 12, I suggest possibly looking for some backup sources to replace those. Also, make sure to cite any artworks included within your article, even if it just a link to a picture of the artwork. Also, really try to elaborate and describe the artist and their works as much as you can.

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
The organization is overall structurally sound, but I recommend creating longer and more information filled sentences or combining some sentences to create a better flow when reading the passage. The Headers and content is organized very well though.

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:
Prof. said no images just possible links to artwork.

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 list source contains a full amount of sources that make your overall information strong. I would only recommend changing or re-evaluating your citation number 9 and 12. Your paper is well on the way to being successful but changes need to be made when citing a source, when overlooking your sources I found much of the information was word for word copied onto your page and this can result in your article being pulled so be careful and rewrite some of your quoted/cited information.

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 Peer reviewed (KimmietheQueen)'s article. I enjoyed reading the work you have completed thus far. The information you included throughout the article was relevant and contained a mostly neutral position. Almost all of your links or sources cited were relevant and good sources. The only sources that may not be viewed as applicable to the article were numbers 9 and 12, I suggest possibly looking for some backup sources to replace those. Although most of your information is relevant, your paragraph contains many short sentences that can be combined to become stronger and create a more fluid tone when reading. Additionally, make sure when citing from your resources that you do not plagiarize. Some of your very first citations contain the exact same wording as what you wrote in your article. Those will be taken down and removed if you do not rephrase into your own words, but still great information. Within the first header paragraph the word "successful" creates a tone that isn't neutral. I recommend replacing or removing the word just in case. I would also review the use of the word "following" in your second paragraph under header number two. Your artworks paragraph, the first one, contains very small spelling and grammar errors but the info is great, just revise (specifically the sentence with "intended in hopes"). Also make sure to cite any artworks included within your article, even if it just a link to a picture of the artwork. Also, really try to elaborate and describe the artist and their works as much as you can. Besides those small changes I feel like the information you included is relevant and mostly neutral, keep up the good work! -Ayssa Omohundro

~