User:Neidagarcia/User:Joseph.C99/G. Peter Jemison/Neidagarcia Peer Review

General info
JosephC.99
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Joseph.C99/G. Peter Jemison
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Lead

 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introduction is good, but perhaps a little sentence or two about what art movement he belongs to or media he works with
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, a quick description would be helpful
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Very concise but could be expanded a tiny bit

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes!
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, most of the references are from the past 5 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The biography is a little small, I suggest a few sentences on his ties to the Seneca nation. if possible, it would be good to mention at what age he started making art. I like the hyperlink usage in this section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does address this a little in the career section.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, no postive or negative adjectives when describing their work.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Nope
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not that I can tell.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Not at all.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, most sources are acclaimed art magazines or published literature.
 * 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?
 * Yes! A majority were put out 2020 or later.
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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?

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?
 * 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?

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of "Homemaking"
 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting