User:Qt dork/User:Jenniferortiz597/Mia Eve Rollow/Qt dork Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jenniferortiz597


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Jenniferortiz597/Mia Eve Rollow
 * 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.)

Lead
The artist currently lacks a lead. The biography contains most of the content that you'd expect to see in a lead, and should probably be reworked into the lead.

Content
The content is relevant to the topic, and it's currently up to date, however, a lot of details about the artist, especially biographical details, are missing.

Tone and Balance
The content seems rather neutral? It feels like a lot of it was an interpretation of the writer's own words, and more work could've been done to make it seem more neutral, but I wouldn't call it biased enough to deserve to be taken down.

Sources and References
There are three sources, with no claims getting citations. The sources look to be from not entirely reliable secondary sources, and there's no Bibliography section, just a references section. However, every link works.

Organization
The content is well written, with no grammatical and spelling errors that I've noticed, and it's broken into clear sections, although I feel like EDELO should be a subsection of Artwork, or a subsection of something else.

Overall impressions
As a whole, I think the article has good potential, but needs more content, and significantly more and better sources. The claims also need to be cited, they can't just be put out into the world without proof that someone else made them.