User:Quinterose/Sara Modiano/Kshah786 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

''All of my answers are in italics. If you have questions please feel free to email me!''

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Quinterose
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Quinterose/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The existing lead briefly introduces the artist, but it could be bettered by putting more information (even just a brief sentence or two) describing what she is remembered for (ex. techniques she pioneered, well known artworks, etc.)
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The existing introductory sentence does a good job of objectively stating who the artist is, her lifespan, and what her occupation was. However, as I previously said, this could be bolstered extremely well by supporting sentences that describe the reason why she is so well known in the art world/why her techniques were considered so revolutionary.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It has some description but could be more inclusive, especially with the new sections added.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the second sentence talks about a topic that is not touched on in the rest of the article. Possibly elaborating on this would be a great way to add to her article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is definitely concise and could stand to be a little more detailed in the ways that I have highlighted above.

Lead evaluation
''The lead is basic, which is good because it is the introduction of the article but it is almost too basic. Adding sentences that briefly describe the reason she is well known and some of her most famous techniques will engage readers and encourage them to learn more about her revolutionary tactics and contributions to the art world.''

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, content was added in the areas of performance art and the significance of her pieces.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all the content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no content that does not belong. The only content I would consider "missing" is a section that talks about the Sara Modiano Grant mentioned in the lead paragraph.

Content evaluation
''I think what has been added so far is great. However, there could definitely be a lot more content about her most famous pieces and her impact in the art world. Also, it would be great to include a section on the Sara Modiano Grant, which is something that could add a lot of content and is meaningful. Since we are trying to showcase her talents, it is important to add as much as possible about her contributions to performance art. Also, mentioning any artists she influenced after would be great too for the "contribution to feminist art" section created.''

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, all content added was objective.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, not at all.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The content added mainly focuses on the viewpoint of one viewing and interpreting the art. Perhaps the viewpoints of critics and/or Modiano herself on her artworks could be added as well.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content was completely objective in its presentation.

Tone and balance evaluation
''So far, the tone is objective yet informative, which is great. However, you may want to add information about what Modiano herself intended her artworks to be/inspire, as well as critics, both praising and critiquing her work.''

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, it is.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes they do. The source added was extremely thorough and offered an in-depth analysis into the life of Modiano in addition to several of her artworks.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, all sources cited are within the last 20 years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes all links work for me.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it is easy to follow and sections are organized well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are a few very minor grammatical issues.
 * "During the performance piece, Modiano uses her body in a public space with people in efforts to change their energy . She was draped in a dress of wired cylinders as she wandered about the crowd using movements with her arms and hands to interact with the people surrounding her"
 * CHANGE TO: "During the performance piece, Modiano used her body in a public space in efforts to change the perspective of people in the area. She was draped in a dress of wired cylinders as she wandered about the crowd using movements with her arms and hands to interact with the people surrounding her"
 * "similarity all humans experience with one another; sexual pleasure"
 * CHANGE TO: "similarity all humans experience with one another: sexual pleasure"
 * "Inside Out from her Fragmented series "
 * "Inside Out" should be italicized
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes the content itself is organized well.

Organization evaluation
Just change the few grammar things and you'll be good to go!

Images and Media
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?

Images and media evaluation
There were no new images or media added, but adding pieces of her artworks and images of Modiano herself would definitely be beneficial for the article.

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?

New Article Evaluation
NOT a new article

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
''I think that the added content has definitely positively contributed to the quality of the article, although I feel as if it could be better improved by adding more information in the areas that I outlined above, such as adding more information on her legacy after her death, the influence of her techniques in the realm of performance art and in the greater art world, information on the Sara Modiano Grant, and pictures of her and her artworks. I think you did a really great job creating new sections and creating a basis for a substantial contribution, although I'd love to see more in-depth information to truly give Modiano the recognition she deserves. Great work so far!''