User:Tug47650/Berlin Secession/Kierafitz 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? Tug47650
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tug47650/sandbox

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
I think the lead is clear, well written, and contains solid content. I also think it should be longer to properly reflect the information that will follow in body of the text. It is definitely concise, just needs a little meat to it.

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?

Content evaluation
All of the content seems to be pretty relevant to the topic and is up-to-date. The one thing that really stood out to me was that because the Secession was composed of multiple artists, it seems like the voices of these artists are missing. Because of this the Berlin Secession is coming across as an empty idea. I think adding some quotations from the participating and founding artists about their hopes and wishes for the secession will help to add context to the movement.

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
All of the content seems fairly neutral, although it may be helpful to just reread everything and try to make everything stated in as academic delivery as possible just to present all content as matter of fact. (I feel like this always helps me stay neutral and just sounds smarter and more reliable in general).

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I saw and recognize your note on the difficulty of finding sources for your topic. Having only two sources does seem a little bare, and I wish you the best of luck in trying to find more.

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
There were some minor grammatical errors or just instances where the syntax of a sentence made it feel a bit clunky. The article is laid out in a logical flow, I would just recommend separating the body paragraphs with the new title sections instead of having it laid out like an outline. I would maybe recommend either in the beginning or the end of the body talking about the secessions links to the multiple other artist movements we have learned about in class.

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
I know the original article for the Berlin Secession has multiple images, but I don't believe you have added any and I think they would greatly enhance your draft.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I think what you have so far is really good and at this point just needs some more content and reformatting. Once you have more content to add I look forward to seeing the article have more sub-topics within the body that profiles some of the secessions most notable and driving-force artists. Adding more image content (possibly some of the promotional works we looked at in class) will help the article greatly.