User:Lamiy23/User:Alyssa.Bustos/Charles Oscar (Chaloska)/Lamiy23 Peer Review

General info
Alyssa.Bustos
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * User:Alyssa.Bustos/Charles Oscar (Chaloska):
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Peer review
Hello Alyssa! I will be reviewing your Wiki assignment.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead written talks about Chaloska and his participation in the Massacere of Porte-au-Prince in 1915, which is good information, however, there is no mention of his artistic influence or artworks. Make sure to include main events from his life and also why he seems significant to right about. What made him stand out? Remember, the lead is where the audience get a rough summary of your artist's life.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead introduces the artist clearly.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not quite. The lead needs more details.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I would say it still needs work because it is too vague to be a good summary.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * While the content is relevant to the topic, I believe it does not focus on the main highlight of the artist as an artist but shows him from a political view. It makes me think, it's a bit too biased. This is also just one sentence in the Biography section which I am guessing the you're working on. Make sure to inform us about his upbringing and any childhood information you find, while keeping a neutral tone.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I believe so. Make sure to add more information.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is a lot of missing content. When I'm reading it, I get a bit confused as things are not explained well.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It briefly mentions those topics in the beginning of the "Chaloska" section but it is not thoroughly explained.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * I believe the content is a bit biased, especially because of the use of words like "notorious" and phrases like "brutal reign".
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Other than the words mentioned in the answer above there is nothing else.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The wikipage has not been developed enough for me to decide.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Yes, I believe it can be neutralized more by using natural descriptive words.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

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?
 * There are some grammatical errors. One I noticed is "Charles Oscar Etienne also known as Chaloska (in creole) was a notorious chief of the national police in Haiti who massacred over 150 political prisoners in Porte-au-Prince in 1915."; there should be a comma before also and after (in creole).
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I see your vision but I still cannot judge because of the lack of information in the article.

Images and Media
NO IMAGES ADDED

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * I believe there needs to be more sources (if you can find more) because most of the sources available have limited information on them and some are mostly pictures.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * I believe there might be more information out there. Especially about the artist as an individual.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I think its a little hard to read and overall broad but I see the historical aspect and the vision of the author.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I liked knowing a bit about the historical aspect but I need more content to judge fairly.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Add more content (especially about the art), review grammar, and remember to be neutral.