User:Nkerry2265/John Russell (Australian painter)/Dhocine 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? Nkerry2265
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: John Russell (Australian painter)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead was not changed. I think the lead can use a few sentences on Russell's life as a developing painter before introducing someone else (Vincent Van Gogh). This takes away from Russel being the main focus of the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. It clearly states that this will be an article that discusses John Russel and his career as an impressionist painter.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The article as is only has one section. Although Nkerry2265 does a great job at adding to this section, I believe that adding other sections, will bring the article to life, perhaps including some things about his personal life that might have played a role in how he became such a successful painter. So to answer the question, in the one section it has, the lead does give a description into this section however I believe the lead jumps into the article and his life way too soon.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is overly detailed. It jumps into Russell's life too quickly and makes a reader feel like they have already gained most of the knowledge regarding his career within a few sentences. The lead is supposed to bring the reader in, engaging them while providing them a concise detail of what will be discussed in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. The content that is added is relevant to the topic because all three that were added contributed to Russell's life as a painter in some form.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content relates to Russell's life and considering he is deceased, the content is up to date. However the article is not. The article stops rather abruptly and does not continue until the year he died which I have found out to be 1991.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, I definitely believe there is content that can be added into the article. The article as is highlights some of the important times in Russell's life that contributed to his success as a painter however it does not detail anything about himself. Perhaps incorporate some more about his personal life. I also recommend creating a section just titled 'History' or 'Early Life' and speak about how he got to where he is today. Note that this is separate from the section already listed titled 'Life and Work.' Here you can include and keep the information relating to his specific pieces. You can also create a section including some of the people (famous or non-famous) that he worked with on certain pieces so that the tone of the article remains about Russel and not about other people or other artists throughout the entire article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes. The only sentence that might be found to be problematic is the last sentence in the third added content, "We could say the trip long ago to Cornwall led to these beautiful works of art." Here you are inferring by saying "we could say" and you are also stating an opinion that these works of art are "beautiful." Although I am sure they are, this wording and tone of opinion might be a problem for Wikipedia.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. Nothing in the added content or in the article shows any HEAVY bias towards one end or the other, although I believe the article can benefit from using different wording in some cases like the one mentioned above using "beautiful."
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, again I just think the article would benefit from separating the sections where other artists are talked about so that there is no overshadowing of Russell since the article is about him.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the added content does a good job at building from Russell's accomplishments and adds to the article. However, the only sentence that might be seen as attempting to persuade the reader in favor of Russell's art is the last sentence in which I discussed in the question above.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, each new content is backed up with a reliable source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are thorough, however I noticed that the link from the second content took me to a website that showed pieces of art from other artists, not just Russell, and this was a bit confusing to navigate through.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, current in relation to the time Russell was alive.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is well written and very clear. It gets to the point while also paying attention to detail.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No it does not.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content was not divided into sections which is something I recommended above. It would be easier to read as well as to edit when looking at different sections however the article only had one section. I believe the article would benefit from adding different sections into the article as opposed to jam packing everything into one section.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article does include some images of Russell's work which help the reader to get a picture of what his artistic style was.
 * Are images well-captioned? The caption of the images just include that it was painted by Russell and the year it was painted along with what canvas it was painted on. Maybe detailing what Russell said about the piece, if anything, would help bring the images to life. (perhaps there is an interesting story behind some)
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes but the images were already there. Perhaps Nkerry2265 can include some more pieces of art from Russell that they find.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the color scheme looks beautiful and it is very visually appealing.

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? The content added does contribute to the article, but I do think there is more to be added to fully understand Russell and his journey to becoming an artist more thoroughly.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content added include the fact that Russell was given more life. What I mean by that is the content added to him as a human rather than just an artist. The third content added was the strongest in my opinion because it detailed his life more, showing that he bought land and "was inspired by the clear lights and bright colors." More of these would definitely bring the article to life.
 * How can the content added be improved? More content should be added to further develop the article. The content added can also include more on Russell's life to bring him to life. The content should also be divided into more sections that will divide the article and make it easier to read. Images can also be added with detailed captions to showcase the different art Russell created. I would also recommend that the second content be either backed up by a different source or add a link to the exact page of the website that shows Russell's work because as it is, it is quite confusing to navigate.

Overall evaluation
~