User:Scoon2020/Annelise Kretschmer: she/her, German, 1903-1987/Morgknop37 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? (provide username) Scoon2020
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Scoon2020/Annelise Kretschmer: she/her, German, 1903-1987

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?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead is effective in reflecting the most important pieces of information regarding the artist's life and accomplishments. It could improve in including descriptions of the article's major sections, but is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content is up to date, but some of the information is not necessarily relevant to the topic. Some of the content in the Early Career section can be read as part of the Biography section. However, the sections are well-sized in length and reflects the artist's perspective well.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is neutral but the use of quotes and the artist's feelings towards her husband and work could be read as biased. It might be helpful to change phrasing surrounding the quotes to present a more objective point of view. For example, you could change "After not finding the right fit in the school in Munich and feeling no “inclinations to go into the parental business...” in the beginning of the Early Career section to "After not finding the right fit in the school in Munch and not being ready to become a parent..."

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are relevant to the content and all the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content reads like a story and has some grammatical errors. The content is well-organized, but could use more definition in the Biography section in terms of a Dr. Weiss who is brought up but there is no context or information about the school or the doctor. Wording could be changed to sound more definitive and less like an idea or an opinion.

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?

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
The article is supported by a good number of sources and contains all the necessary section headings and layouts of similar articles.

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
The content is a good start and covers extensively her personal life and early career. It sets up the article to expand more on her career and includes good sources and links to other Wikipedia pages. The content could use some grammatical and tonal changes as well as a picture of the artist or her art to help with the visual aspect of the article. All in all the content is good and gives a lot of good information about the artist.