User:Mmmsawyer333/Ida Jones: she/her, American, 1874-1959/Juliaberman 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? - Mmmsawyer333
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Could not access draft. I will be reviewing Ida Ella Ruth Jone's wikipedia page as it is. The link is found here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Ella_Ruth_Jones

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I'm not sure, as the draft to their work isn't present within the sandbox. So, i'm unsure whether this article already existed before or the author created it and just made an official article on Wikipedia for it.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, explains the artist and her backstory quite well.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, there's no table of contents, however, due to lack of paragraphs.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, it describes how she was self taught.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Very concise. Only a short description of the artist, perfect length.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Very relevant content that gives nice historical context.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. It seemed very accurate.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It could use more details about her art itself, or perhaps a list of her various works.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Absolutely. It gives an in depth historical context, which I feel is the strongest part of the essay. It describes her as being the child of slaves and a self taught artist in the South as an African-American woman.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Context is neutral. It feels historically accurate.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No claims are biased. All feel neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Could discuss more about the style of art she did, and how that inspired her. Or how her life was reflected in her art. Describe the paintings.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it's all up to interpretation. It feels like a biography, which is good.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, there aren't any citations. Only "Literature" which I assume means sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Sources seem thorough, I just wish the information reflected the in depth quality of the sources.
 * Are the sources current? Not quite, but the artist is from quite a while ago, so I assume there aren't any more recent articles about her.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, diverse spectrum of authors is present. All authors papers discuss her.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No links present.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, very clear content. No errors here.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, points are broken down quite well, although there is a lack of information.

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


 * 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?

For New Articles Only
'''If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. N/A'''


 * 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? I cannot see the original version, if this is the edited version.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Gives an in depth historical context.
 * How can the content added be improved? Needs more details about art, art style, and inspirations, as well as maybe some images.