User:Nmkeith/View of Olinda (Post)/Mightybear17 Peer Review

Lead

The Lead wasn’t updated because the information from the original Wikipedia article had good information on what View of Olinda was about. The Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article’s topic. Talking about the artist and the history of the painting. Yes, it has a brief description of the article’s major sections. No, the lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The lead is concise and perfect for an introduction to the topic.

Content

The lead section is easy to understand and you have it nicely organized. Compared to the original, it barely had any information about the painting, it was vague and needed more information about the painting. The content she added is up-to-date. There is content that she hasn't cited yet. This is just the rough draft so it makes sense why you haven’t done it yet. The article deals with one Wikipedia gap which is on historical content about the painting. The artist and why he plays an important role in describing and painting different aspects of Brazil such as the animals and plants. It addresses topics that are involved in history and added more information on what it represented and how important the piece was compared to the original.

Tone and Balance

The content is neutral. To me, there are not any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. There are some viewpoints that you could add more information on but, we are still working on this so it makes sense why some areas aren’t complete yet. But from what she has so far it is well organized and it isn’t confusing. Some areas are not completed yet such as talking about the painting and adding more information on the iconography. The content she added lets the reader understand why this painting is important. She did a great job describing the history and why this piece is important. She has a clear reflection on various aspects of the painting. Compared to the original when it only had the lead but didn’t have information to back it up.

Sources and References

The content is backed up by reliable sources. The content that you added reflects on the cited sources. The sources are current and the links work to view the references. The sources are reliable and most of them are up-to-date.

Organization

The content added is well-written and easy to read. It is clear, the only spot where I was having a hard time trying to understand is where one of the animals is located at. The only thing, I would focus on is when you stated about the monkey in the painting. I would recommend stating where that monkey is located, specifically. An example of this could be the monkey is located in the foreground in the middle next to the bushes. I was a bit confused because I didn’t know where the monkey was located at. At the first glance, I thought the monkey was in the left corner, until I zoomed in on the image. I think it would also be helpful to screenshot the image of the monkey and add a picture so the reader could understand where that animal is located at. I think Professor Miller is going to show us how to do that in class this week. The content added doesn’t have any grammatical or spelling errors. The content added is well organized and first talks about briefly the history who the artist is. And in the other headings talk about the main points of the painting.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)