User:Purplepenguink/Pola lopez/Purplepenguink Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Pola Lopez:


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Pola Lopez


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Pola Lopez

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?
 * Introductory sentence is good-- but I would also add a reference just in case because of the quotations.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * brief descriptions are good !!
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no-- the lead is good and included everything that will be discussed in the article: gives the main idea and the overarching theme for the artist's work
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * short and concise !!! really good !!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * content added was relevant to topic -- I just suggest putting references after each sentence, so there is background and no confusion as to where you received your information.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * content is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * no missing content, I would be careful with certain word choice. Only one "Successfully" in paragraph 2.  This may be a little too over the top for me to say, but I think it may be considered a "biased" word.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes it does ! It addresses the topic in a neutral way, and also gives a reference.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * content is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * my only concern was the "successfully" but I think it honestly may be fine.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * none !
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no persuasion int he article

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * yes it does
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * sources are all thorough with their own references
 * Are the sources current?
 * references are very recent mostly in 2021
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes they do
 * 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.)
 * I think that the sources that are given are good. There are not really peer reviewed articles, but the articles that are given are taken from accredited and well-known magazine articles.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes! all links work!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * clear and concise
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no spelling or grammar errors
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * the content is very well organized and divides everything neatly.

Images and Media
no images were given

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?
 * Yes there are more than 3 reliable sources
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * there are about 11 sources and all accurately representative of the topic
 * 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?
 * yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * no articles are linked

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The overall quality of the article is good. It is easy short and concise to read and gives all facts that are necessary for the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Descriptions of artwork is added, followed by a detailed bibliography.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * pictures would definitely help, but not a necessity as it is hard to gain rights for certain pics.