User:Qchen018/Abstract impressionism/ElnF94 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? Qchen018
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Abstract impressionism

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not yet, but it won't need to be.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, but it does not need more.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No- if anything, it is overrepresented.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No- there's a good balance of criticism, which is heartening to see on an art page.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

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? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No- but that may change with inclusion of modern scholars.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes- I really like this article.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I can see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I am reviewing a current article, but this wiki seems largely complete.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is straightforward, easily navigable, and without any reason for me to raise a complaint.
 * How can the content added be improved? More elaboration on what makes the movement unique- though that is a philosophical question inherent to the art world.

Overall evaluation
This is a very strong page that needs little work to fix. It is an example of a very strong article.