User:Lucypitock78/User:Abholtz/sandbox/Lucypitock78 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? Abholtz
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Abholtz/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No? Kind of
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Very concise

Lead evaluation
I think its brief enough that you could find something to add, just a bit more summary of his life or what else he contributed to the art world (or if he did anything else particularly important in his life!)

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? A little, mostly no.

Content evaluation
I think maybe theres a bit too much detail in places, or perhaps that they just need rephrasing - for the 'Autumn Day' painting, add the quote that Chekov said instead of paraphrasing, and the "100 rubles" feels a little unbalanced. You give great details but in the next paragraph, you jump into his schooling without introducing it, which is a bit confusing.

I like the "friendship with Anton Chekhov" section, but you should move the following quote from "early work" to that section: "Levitan often visited Chekhov and some think Levitan was in love with his sister, Maria Pavlovna Chekhova.[citation needed]"

I also like the paragraph on birch trees. Maybe this could be a part of a larger paragraph on Levitan's motifs and/or Russian/Jewish motifs?

Its a bit confusing when you reference the whole "grasshopper" play/grudge with Chekov in both "friendship with Chekhov" and the "Later Life" section - its not quite clear that you're talking about the same situation.

The "Legacy" Section is great! Maybe you could add more, but its a great improvement from what was already there.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
Under "Early Work," you call him "one of their best students." Maybe "most advanced" or something of that sort would work better.

It was already there, but under "later life" it calls one of his paintings "one of his best pictures." I think that whole sentence could be removed, actually ("So the plan of one of his best pictures, The Silent Monastery, was born.")

Otherwise, its pretty unbiased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes- mostly
 * 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
Looks good! Some things that are already there say "citation needed" - perhaps you could confirm this info?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Mostly
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but needs a bit of adjustment

Organization evaluation
Mostly great, just needs some shuffling around.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I think yes yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
Looks good - you should add pics though! It'd be neat if there are any photographs of Chekov and Levitan together, or any photos at all, although perhaps there wouldn't be at this period in his area- check it out?

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
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
You're doing great! I think it just needs some organizational improvement mostly, and adding some images could help too. If there's more info on his early life, it might be good to elaborate on that too. You've added some very interesting stuff, just needs to make a little more sense to someone with no knowledge of this guy/his works.