User:Takk1342/Erna Stein-Blumenthal: she/her, German/Israeli, 1903-1983/Jessssk 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) Takk1342
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Takk1342/Erna Stein-Blumenthal: she/her, German/Israeli, 1903-1983

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:
Although the Lead has a few grammatical errors, it does provide a concise introduction to the article considering it states birth date, death date and career. Since the article right now is rather bare bones due to a lack of source material, there isn't much for the Lead to summarize. However, I'm sure that will change with the addition of new information.

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 context added is up-to-date and relevant to the topic, mostly centered around her career and education. I feel as though there should be more citation but I could very well be wrong. Either way, there is a key bit of information missing on her early life, although I understand information like that is rather difficult to find, and some information relative to what she did exactly with her art career. It does certainly deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps in the sense that the topic is on a historically underrepresented woman in art history.

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 on the work thus far is very neutral with zero claims that appear heavily biased in any position. There is similarly a lack of this problem relative to the over/under-representation of certain viewpoints. Since there is just a stub of information here, there really isn't any persuasive material. It is rather to the point.

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 two sources provided here are links to the same Wikipedia article on Blumenthal in German. Although this is a reliable source with plenty of good citations, I don't think that it's the best for a corresponding Wikipedia article in English. Rather, it may have served the author better to explore the cited material on said Wiki article. The sources however are undeniably thorough, although maybe not ranging from the most diverse of places, reflective on the little exposure Blumenthal has had within the canon. The links are completely functional.

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, although sometimes a bit hastily written, is concise and easy to read. There are a few minimal grammatical errors. There is not yet enough information in the article for it to be seriously organized in any certain way.

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 are no images added to the article at this time.

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:
Unfortunately, this article does not seem to be supported by more than one source at the moment, although I'm sure that will change. I do not think the list of sources is yet exhaustive enough to represent all accessible literature on the subject. Although the article is missing a few key things, the basic structure of it definitely is indicative of a successfully written and well-organized article. The article does not yet link to other articles but there are ample opportunities for it to do so as its author expands on its written material.

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 article as it stands is rather bare bones. I understand the difficulty in retrieving information relative to obscure topics/marginalized or erased people so this is not a surprise to me. However, I feel like there could have been more of an attention to source retrieval, or maybe an exploration into the sources listed in that original German article. The piece is concise, factual and gets to the point. I'm sure this will hold up as it's developed over time. With a bit more research and an expansion of source material this article will most certainly improve.