User:Mnooj/Kelly Church/Gilbertltaylor 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? Mnooj
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Kelly Church

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
From what I can tell the lead hasn't been changed, but the original is concise and describes the article topic. It looks to only need minor grammatical changes (adding in Kelly Jean Church is 'a' black ash baskter maker...). The lead references all the information that the article contains.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The new content added is very relevant to the topic and is cited with sources from recent years. I don't see any content that is missing or doesn't fit with the topic. I really like rework of the basketry section and the information about the emerald ash borer (we have problems with these in Madison!).

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The added content is definitely presented in an objective, neutral tone and I don't see any content that could be interpreted as biased, skewed or persuasive.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * 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
Yes, all the new content are backed up and cited with a reliable secondary source. The sources used appear to be very thorough and current. This is a very specific topic, so I can't be sure if they reflect all the available literature, but the sources appear to be fairly comprehensive. Checking through the references, the links to the blogs and other websites work, but the links to the resources from the University library catalog are broken and don't actually list the bibliographic information, so these need to be double-checked.

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?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Overall the content is well-written, clear, and concise. I didn't notice any grammatical errors except for the missing article (a) in the lead. The dividing sections are logical and make for easy navigation and reading.

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


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There is no media, but I'd love to see pictures of examples of birchbark biting! I'm sure it isn't easy to find a good image that has no copyright issues, though.

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

Overall evaluation
Overall, the additions flesh out the article and have provided more resources that the reader can follow up with. The rewritten portions of the article definitely enhance the article and improve the tone. Adding more exhibitions is super useful, too, in that the reader can follow up and try to find the exhibition catalogs, for instance. I wish there were more citations for the painting and birchbark biting sections, but I'm sure this is mostly because the difficulty in locating resources. I think you could also add in more links to other articles, particularly for terms and objects that the reader might not know about (i.e. fishing creel). Finally, I think more images would add a ton to the article, but again I'm sure that since she is a contemporary artist, most of the images are probably under copyright.