User:Mhayko11/Joslyn Art Museum/Uwmadartlibhb23 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mhayko11


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mhayko11/Joslyn_Art_Museum?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Joslyn Art Museum

Lead
The length of the lead section is good and the first two sentences are a great introduction to this museum. In the third sentence, the first part "In his honor, the building was named the Joslyn Memorial" is relevent to this section, but the second part "and was not referred to as the Joslyn Art Musuem until it was renamed in 1950." is too much detail for this section and should be in the George and Sarah Joslyn section instead. The strengths of the museum's permanent collection are relevent and good to have in this section, but naming specific artists is too much detail for the lead. This could be included in a specific collections section, but does not belong here. The mission statement belongs in a different section. The lead section does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, this could be added. The lead section is fairly concise, but there are a few parts that are overly detailed.

Content
Content added is relevent and up-to-date. A lot of great information has been added, but the writing itself could be edited further to make it easier to read. There are some clunky transitions and typos. The building history section was really interesting, I enjoyed learning about the evolution of the building and the different architectural styles. I wonder if the new Rhonda and Howard Hawks Pavillion deserves its own subsection under Building history. The admissions section was especially interesting and relevant to current events happening in many museums, I love how detailed you were able to make this section.

Tone and Balance
The content added is neutral and not persuasive. The section on George and Sarah Joslyn does seem to be extremely positive, but that could be a reflection of what all of the sources describe. If there were any negative descriptions of the couple and the way they made money, I would be interested to read those as well.

Sources and References
The resources added are all very current, mostly from the last two years. Most of the sources are from news articles or other magazines or publications, which is probably what was available. There are many resources cited, which is a great sign.

Organization
All the sections in your sandbox are relevant to this topic and will increase understanding of this museum. The order you put your sections in also makes sense, working chronologically from the conception of the museum, to the building of the museum, to its contemporary issues.

Images and Media
N/A

Overall impressions
The content added has made the article more complete. Adding information on the couple that founded this museum, the history of the building and its additions, and the change in admissions is all relevant and important information that will increase understanding about this museum. The amount of references you added is very impressive.

Final ways to improve your changes would be to edit the lead section a bit and do some general editing and proofreading of your other sections.