User:Vega93x/Pilar Agüero-Esparza/JazzyLinx Peer Review

Hi AleAlejandroAleAlejandro! Here's my peer review for you:

Lead

 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - Yes, you included a clear and concise lead, and it describes the article's topic well. To make the wording even clearer, you might change "the effects of them on..." to "their effects on."

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, you did a great job gathering relevant content that provides useful background on the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, I can see that all of your sources are from 2018 or later. Way to find recent, up-to-date content for this article!
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - No, I think you did a good job only including relevant content. Also, the content in the article accurately summarizes most of the key information about the topic that readers would want to know.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Yes, by writing about Guatemalan American woman whose medium is performance art, this article addresses multiple equity gaps, including underrepresented gender and ethnic minority figures in the public sphere.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes, the tone is neutral throughout. You did a great job keeping the tone informative rather than persuasive, and avoiding any sense of bias!

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Not always. You did really well with the citations for the body of the article, but the "Notable Works" section should have citations for each selected work of art, too.
 * Are the sources current? - Yes, all of the sources were current and when I clicked on a few links, they worked. Nicely done!

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written? - Yes, overall this is a well-written article that was clear, on-topic and easy to read. Good work!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - There were only a few minor errors, but they did not distract from the article's clarity or readability. Instead of "Master's of Fine Arts" I believe it should be "Master of Fine Arts," and instead of "Bachelor's in Fine Art" it should be "Bachelor of Arts degree in fine art." Some sentences under the heading "Notable Works" need to have the first letter capitalized.
 * Is the content added well-organized? - Yes, you followed the Wikipedia template accurately and provided a clear, organized set of headings to guide the reader through the content.

Overall impressions

 * What are the strengths of the content added? - Overall, this is a clear, concise article that provides a good summary of the relevant information on the topic. The sources are up-to-date and accurately communicate the information linked with them in the citations. There do not seem to be any major omissions, and the tone is neutral and informative throughout.
 * How can the content added be improved? - Just a few details to double-check, like including citations for every piece of information provided in the article, and correcting a few minor spelling errors. Once those are fixed, this will be an excellent Wikipedia article!