User:Scottdirkb/Christopher Myers/SBryan29 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) Scottdirkb
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Scottdirkb/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No

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? Yes -- see notes on error in exhibition list, owing to error in original source

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
 * 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? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * 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
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes -- see notes for question on whether dates should be chronological or most-recent-first

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The original article features an image of a recent book, but you might include an image of the artist since there are some available on the sources cited.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? More readable and more complete
 * How can the content added be improved? I've provided a few notes on the talk page and below.

Overall evaluation
I like that you've eliminated the current article's too brief "Biography" section and elaborated on that for the lead. It reads much better this way.

One copy-editing note -- the last thought in the lead section, "Chris Myers also has a book imprint with Random House," should be its own sentence. Replace the comma preceding that thought with a period.

I'm glad you've made a new section for his Fine Art works that are to be kept separate from his work on Children's Literature and you've done a great job finding accurate sources for all of these.

I'm not sure it's required, but on my article I added links to the lists of awards and honors, as applicable, just so they can be externally verified. They're all pretty easy to find just by googling.

I appreciate that you put in an External Links section -- I was struggling to come up with an appropriate name for this section of links I'd found in my research but didn't actually use as citations -- I think I'll borrow this heading title, thanks!

Some other notes:

The External Links section should use a heading font.

I would reorganize the Fine Art and Awards sections to begin with the most recent and decrease by year like a resume/CV does -- I’m not certain what the preferred format is for Wikipedia though.

I also might format the Fine Art entries as a bulleted list so it's clearer which description is attached to which exhibition.

I was confused by the Henrietta Lacks -- Vaslav Nijinsky connection on the Fine Art list. By following the link for the 2018 exhibition labeled here as "Fire in the Head: A Chapel for Henrietta Lacks," I realized that there is an error on that article about the exhibition. Myers's official website shows that there are two separate bodies of work -- one called "Fire in the Head," the shadow puppets about Nijinsky ( https://www.kalyban.com/fireinthehead ) that were exhibited at the SCAD Museum; and another called "Fourth Class Relic: A Chapel for Henrietta Lacks," which consists of stained glass windows that reference the HeLa cells originating from Lacks's cervical cancer ( https://www.kalyban.com/fourthclassrelic ). It's unclear where the windows are displayed and/or installed, if at all, but they might be added to your Fine Art list.

Similarly, the previous entry, about "Go Forth" (2016), I'm interpreting that NY Times article as saying Myers designed the set pieces, not the play itself, but I could be wrong about that.

All in all, great job on your article, Scott! I think it's much improved from the current version.

-Sarah