User:KoreelahCJLoader/Grace Crowley/AbbyJColthup 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

 * Rhianna Phillips and Koreelah
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The article doesnt contain a lead
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The article starts with Early Life, which does discuss a few things that can go into the lead
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The introduction would benefit from a possible overview of Crowley's work and what kind of art they made and contributions.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Needs a lead
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Needs a lead

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes it is. the authors have created a strong linearage of the artists life and work.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The article includes references from Modern/Contemporary sources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think an "Artwork" or "Notable Artwork" section would be good so readers can quickly further research Crowley's work to gain a better contextual understanding. Also adding a lead.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? It very much follows the narrative of Crowley's life
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is a big emphasis on Crowley's upbringing but it is all relivant to her subject matter and time period
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It is fact based.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? 5 sources have bee used so far, their isn't any referencing or footnoting for me to clearly see what information has been found where. The sources used are all published books/journals
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Websites could be useful to include as well, possibly for quick and easy further research for readers.
 * Are the sources current? The article has many Modern and Contemporary sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Not just yet.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A few
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Early Life, Education, Career. Perfect. A good flow of content.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Not applicable
 * 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? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? A few more would be perfect.
 * 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? Yes.
 * 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.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Very factual, give a clear narrative
 * How can the content added be improved? A few more sections