User:Sromo314/User:Valdezjralex/Juan Miguel de Agüero/Sromo314 Peer Review

General info
Valdezjralex/Juan Miguel de Agüero
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Valdezjralex/Juan_Miguel_de_Ag%C3%BCero?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Valdezjralex/Juan_Miguel_de_Ag%C3%BCero?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? -Yes the newest content being added just as recent from 2024, 2021, and 2018 as they are the most recent sources apart from the others which date back several decades apart from one another.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?-Yes it must be noted how straightforward and informative it is in merely one sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?-For the most part yes the majority of the article includes brief descriptions of the major sections for the Artworks and Exhibitions however it does lack this in certain areas most prominently being the Biography, Education, and Fortifications of Havana Cuba. Although it is understandable simply because perhaps there wasn’t enough information upon the artist or subject matter to begin which should be taken into consideration when reviewing this particular assignment.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?- As far as I can see to the best of my knowledge no I do not believe that the Lead is including information that isn’t present throughout the entire article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?- Personally I would say that the Lead of the article is very concise and straightforward. It gets straight forward and to the point with no questions asked. I would also advise to add a few sentences here are there just to add a bit of more nuance

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?- Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic. It does a great job of talking about how Juan Miguel de Aguero’s work blended several different architectural styles while at the same time
 * Is the content added up-to-date?-Yes the content added is up to date in fact it includes content from as recent as January 2024.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?- Yes unfortunately there is content missing most notably from the Biography and Education sections of the article. The rest of the content however seems to work fairly well in conjunction with the subject matter.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?- Yes I would say the article does address historically underrepresented artists such as Juan Miguel de Aguero together with the Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral and it’s significant impact during the late 1500s and early 1800s.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?- Yes I would say so the article itself tries to provide a neutral viewpoint about the artist by presenting facts,critically evaluates the artist’s work through the various famous Cathedral’s Juan worked upon in addition to cross-referencing research and information therefore giving a reader a decent well rounded understanding of the artist.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?-Not particularly no I have to say the article seems pretty balanced to me. I personally didn’t notice any claims that appeared to be heavily biased towards a specific bias or agenda.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?-Yes as I stated before certain aspects of this article are underrepresented most promptly being the Biography, Education, and Fortifications of Havana portions of the article. Otherwise, the remaining paragraphs of the article seemed pretty on point as far as I was concerned and did not seem to be overbearing or overrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?- No, not particularly as I stated in the previous question, however I will say it doesn’t really change the viewer's view of the artist altogether.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?-Yes the majority of the cited sources are backtracked and used well as aspiration and viable resources for the article everything from books to websites all tying into the artist and his work upon the Mexico City Cathedrals.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)- Yes the content does reflect the cited sources pretty well. It is pretty one for one because the lack of information from the sources plays in contrast to the article itself.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?- Yes the somewhat lack of content is completely mirrored by it’s sources of simply not having enough meat on the bone which is understandable as something that is common with this particular assignment.
 * Are the sources current?-Yes, the most current sources were added just as recently as 2024, 2021, and 2018.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?- Yes I would say so these sources contain a variety of different authors both men and women from different cultures and backgrounds.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)- While I do think it would be most likely after doing some of my own digging and research there sometimes just isn’t enough information on these lesser known artists hence why this article leaks content in some areas. It seems just natural that some artists have more content than others.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?- Yes after testing six of the links I can confirm that they do in fact work and are effective.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?- Yes the content is very simple with a very straightforward tone.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?-Not that I am aware of no I do not see any issues with grammar or punctuation. Regardless it can always be fixed with spell check.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?- Yes the article is broken down into several sub categories from the Lead, Biography, Education, Artworks, and Exhibitions.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?- No the article does not in fact include images most likely due to copyright issues which is understandable.
 * Are images well-captioned?- Once again no images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?- Once again no images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?- Once again no images.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?- Yes the article is supported by more than three sources in relation to the other secondary sources such as books and websites.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?- I would say so because the lack of content in certain areas corresponds to the lack of information gathered from these sources. Now granted some have more than others but for some aspects of the article sometimes a few sentences is really all you find regarding the subject matter when it comes to these lesser known artists.
 * 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?- Yes and no it contains most of the features found within most wikipedia articles however it lacks links to other articles within the text of the article not including the cited sources which are clearly there I mean apart from this.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?- As stated in the previous question, no it does not include links to other articles within the text only from the works cited page at the bottom.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?- It would be in theory with some minor changes and more added content in certain areas and posting links within the article itself excluding the works cited page at the bottom which is separate.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?- This paper has many strengths of being a simple, straightforward, and informative article.

How can the content added be improved?- Once again some minor changes and more added content in certain areas and posting links within the article would make this already good article even better than before.