User:Snaughton/Malina Suliman/Emilyherberholz 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)
 * I am reviewing Snaughton's work on Malina Suliman.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Snaughton/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the work has been updated appropriately. Shaliqua added multiple new references. She also divided it into sections, as the original article was simply a paragraph with no divisions.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introduction is clear, however it should be updated to provide more of a summary of the entire article. It appears to include new information rather than just summarizing what will be discussed in the entirety of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Rather than introducing new information, I would make the Lead a simple description of the entire article. Shaliqua may want to update it to include a sentence about Malina Suliman's career, education, and art. As it stands now, the lead includes key information, however this information may be better sorted into a new section. Some suggestions for a title for this section may be "Historical Significance" or something similar.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, as it stands now the lead includes information that is not further discussed in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is slightly overly detailed, because, as I stated above, it includes information that is better sorted into its own section. I do like the first sentence, as it gives good background information. I feel this section could be shortened and/or re-arranged.

==== Lead evaluation: The lead includes a great amount of information, but it is not a summary of the article. It reads a bit more like background information. Making the suggestions I talked of above will help bolster the article's content and create an effective lead. ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is interesting and relevant. She discusses Malina Suliman's life in a variety of aspects, such as career, artwork, and education. She also mentions a lot about the struggle Suliman grew up with as a result of her identity, which adds a lot to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up to date. She covers the timespan from 1990 until 2016.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * If there is information available on her life after 2016, this would be good to add.
 * If there is information available on her life after 2016, this would be good to add.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content is neutral. It discusses a politically polarized issue, but approaches it in a rational way. Rather than using long quotes on the politically charged content, it may be a good idea to make the words your own.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not necessarily. Even though it's a tense issue, in which Suliman was clearly mistreated, you could try to explain her family's views in order to make the article slightly more fair.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * As I stated above, I think she could explain why Suliman's family felt the way that they did.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. It discusses a sensitive issue of oppression on the basis of gender and religion. When talking about a topic such as this one, stating that oppression is wrong is not persuading the reader. She's stating facts.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, although all the articles are from news sources. There are no journal publications.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough. I imagine it is difficult to find information on her, but a few google searches led me to some unused sources that would be helpful. I will text some links!
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, many are from the past few years. The earliest one is from 2013, which is still current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links all work.

==== Sources and references evaluation: The sources that you chose are good, however, when using the same source multiple times you do not have to click "new source", rather you can just re-use the same citation you originally had. That way they won't show up again in your bibliography. If you make this adjustment, you have five original sources. It will be good to find a few more (I know it's hard to find relevant sources!!) to back up your article. ====

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content is well-written. However, some sections read more like a list rather than a concise description. For example, the "career" section switches drastically from the first sentence on her artistic beginning to a discussion of her oppression as an artist. To remedy this, I would take some information from the lead, update the lead, and add this information to a section devoted to the backlash and struggle she underwent as an artist.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not notice any spelling or grammatical errors. Great Job!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I think that each section includes great information, however, by adding a section on the prejudice she experienced as an artist (and as a woman) the sections could be made a little bit clearer and more reflective of the title. I think the education section as well as the art section are thorough and well planned out.

==== Organization evaluation: As I mentioned above, I think you're doing a great job in terms of finding information. You have a lot of facts, the issue is just with making them flow. A few transition sentences would help with this, as would moving some information around so that each section correlates efficiently with its title. ====

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are no images present.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images present.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are no images present.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There are no images present.

==== Images and media evaluation: There are no images in the article as of right now. To enhance the article, I would suggest adding one image of the subject as well as one example of her artwork. It would be great to include an image of her most famous artwork, which you described as a skeleton wearing a blue burqa. ====

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?
 * The article is definitely much more complete. It is way more organized, with sections rather than just a paragraph. It is a much better reflection of the artist.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The article now discusses the artist's life from multiple lenses, given the section. Each section is a good representation of that aspect of the artist's life.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I feel that each section could have a little bit more added to it, as I mentioned above that it would be helpful to find a few more sources to bolster your information. Additionally, I just suggest some re-organization.

==== Overall evaluation: I think that you have a great basis, which you can easily convert into a finished article by polishing some of the organization, adding a little bit more content to each section, using transitions, and finding some more sources. ====