User:Valdezjralex/User:G-Anne-Serenity/Pedro Patiño Ixtolinque/Valdezjralex Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

The lead has been updated with new content by my peer.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The lead includes a introductory that is clear and concise.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The lead does mention artworks that are later named in the artwork section.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No, the lead includes information that is apart of the article.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is concise and is not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Some of the content added is relevant to the topic.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

The content added is up to date.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There is content that doesn't need to belong in certain sections of the Headers. I would refer to the guidelines for the wiki article for the Biography. Last paragraph in Artistic Styles and Themes does not need to be included. Education and Career last paragraph doesnt have to be included.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes the article does address topics related to historically underrepresented populations and topics.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

The content is not neutral because of statements like “best known work”. Comb through and make sure statements have no bias to them.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

There is not any heavy claims towards a particular position that I have seen.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

There are no viewpoints that are underrepresented. There is overrepresentation within the Biography, Artistic Style and Themes, Education, Artworks,  and Career paragraph.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

There is no swaying in any position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

There are some statements that do not have footnotes with secondary information.


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Yes, the content reflects what the cited sources say.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

The sources reflect the available literature on the topic.


 * Are the sources current?

A majority of the sources are current.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

The sources are not as diverse as they could be. For example “The rupture generation” is referenced 14 out of 30.


 * 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.)


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, the links are working.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

There is some sentence that can be switched around. For example, “Between the years of 1826 and 1834, Ixtolinque worked as the Academy’s director. He was one of the most notable students of the school. “ The order of these two sentences can be flipped.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * From my knowledge the article does not have grammatical errors.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The content is well organized and is broken down into sections of major points of the topic.

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

My peer does not have any images or media.

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 2-3 reliable secondary sources.


 * 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?

Yes, there are patterns from articles I’ve seen that are similar to my peer’s.


 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Yes, the articles link to other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes, the content has improved the information of what was previously in the article.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

The strength comes from added information throughout the whole article and added information to the Lead.


 * How can the content added be improved?

By reducing the filler so that the information is straight to the point and by adding footnotes to sentences that state facts.