User:Tcspencer01/Johanna Toruño/Jtor0278 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Tcspencer01)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Tcspencer01/Johanna Toruño
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead guiding questions and review:


 * The lead has been updated to reflect the content associated with the artist that this individual is focusing on. The addition of links throughout the lead is very helpful.
 * The lead does include an introductory sentence about the artist.
 * The lead does not include an overview of the sections seen throughout the article.
 * The lead does include information that is not referenced again in the later sections.
 * The first sentence is concise. The part that signals to the artist's most well known pieces should be referenced later in the section that examines her works.

Content guiding questions and review:


 * The content that is added is relevant to the artist. I'm pleasantly surprised by how much information was able to be found for this artist.
 * The content that is added is up to date.
 * Some information that might be added is a brief description about the notable works that were mentioned in the article.
 * This article does address an individual/artist who is underrepresented.

Tone and Balance guiding questions and review:


 * This article is written in a neutral way.
 * There are no claims that appear to be biased. The information that is stated is directly related to biographical information.
 * It does seem that the viewpoint of queer pride is represented a lot through this article, but I do not think that it is done so in a way to push an agenda. It is simply accounting for artist's life.
 * The article does not attempt to persuade the audience into a specific viewpoint.

Sources and References guiding questions and review:


 * All the new content is supported by a reliable secondary source such as LA Times or HuffPost and Teen Vogue. The Teen Vogue article may not be as reliable.
 * The content accurately represents information that is shown in their sources.
 * The sources are very thorough. They offer insight for the artist herself and her goals.
 * The sources are very current. They are written within the last 2 years.
 * Based on the names of the authors, it does appear that the sources are chosen by a variety of publishers.
 * All of the links work.

Organization guiding questions and review:


 * The content is coherent and easy to read.
 * There are no spelling errors.
 * The headings for different subjects were broken down in a coherent and efficient way.

Images and media guiding questions and review:


 * No images, so no questions applicable.

For New Articles only guiding questions and review:


 * Info box was written well.
 * The article links to other articles that do not offer more information about the artist. For example, when Washington DC or introvert are linked, it does not offer more related information about the artist. I'm not sure if it was to help the reader get a better understanding of what they were talking about, but introvert or Washington DC seem like most people would know what this is.