User:Venusianscholar/User:ThatFooMemo/Magot (figurine)/Venusianscholar Peer Review

General info
ThatFooMemo
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:ThatFooMemo/Magot (figurine)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Magot (figurine)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

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

· It appears my peer is using the original Lead, which consists of one sentence. He does expand on the information provided in the introduction later in the content portion. My peer wrote an in-depth description of the magot figurine and the history of porcelain in Europe and China. Then, he gives examples of other magots.

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

· Yes, the first sentence clearly and concisely describes the article's topic. My peer should add more information about the purpose of the piece.

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

· The Lead only summarizes the appearance of the magot figurine and the meaning of the word magot. Additionally, the mediums used to create such pieces.

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

· Yes! He expands on all the information present in the Lead.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

· The Lead provides concise information.

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

· Yes, the content added is relevant. My peer provides the history of and the influence of the magot figurine.

Is the content up to date?

· The content is up to date.

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

· The only thing missing in the article is the purpose of the figurine. Other than that, the article provides historical information about the medium and the European admiration of the figures.

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

· I am not sure. Magot figurines are of Chinese origin, a country that is not underrepresented. As a society, we have conducted various research on Chinese history and dynasties. The article also includes another over-represented continent, Europe.

Tone and Balance

Is the content added neutral?

· Yes, the content added is neutral with an informative tone.

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

· I did not read any biases in the article.

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

· The article does not attempt to persuade me to lean towards or away from anything. My peer does a great job at giving historical information with no biases and a neutral tone.

Sources and References

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

· I was only able to find one of the articles when I copied and pasted the title of each source. The one source I did find is a reliable source.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?

· I am not too sure because I could not find the sources.

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

· N/A

Are the sources current?

· The one source I found is current. I am not sure about the rest of the sources.

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

· Out of the six sources, my peer used two different authors twice.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?

·  N/A

Check a few links. Do they work?

· The provided sources links do not work in the “References” section of the article. None of the sources directly connect me to the page my peer quoted.

Organization

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

· Yes, the content is concise, clear, and easy to read.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

· I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors. There were no run-on sentences or misspelled words. The Lead sentence is missing a period.

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

· Yes! The porcelain portion of the article separates porcelain history from China and Europe.

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

· Yes, the images give a visual example of what a magot figurine looks like. The article shows examples from China, and magot examples Europeans created.

Are images well-captured?

· The images are clear.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations?

· Yes, the images adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

· Yes, the images are organized well throughout the article.

Overall Impressions

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

· Yes, the article feels more complete. Before the edits, the article was completely empty. Now, there is a lot more context of what the artwork is.

What are the strengths of the content added?

· I think the biggest strength is the section that reviews porcelain history. The section is both informative and satisfying to read because it is well organized.

How can the content added be improved?

· As I mentioned before, I would just like some information on the purpose of the figure. Besides that minor request, the article is well written!