User:Virgohno/Lillian Louisa Pitts: she/her, American, 1872-1947/Clopez-ona Peer Review

Peer review
''Hi, so I left the sort of guidelines for the peer review on here in case you wanted to see them, and then wrote my answers in italics below each section. Sorry if I filled this out weird or wrong. I wasn't really sure how to do it.''

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)                               I am reviewing an article on Lillian Louisa Pitts by Virgohno
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:                                                                 User:Virgohno/Lillian Louisa Pitts: she/her, American, 1872-1947

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 evaluationThe article still needs a lead at the beginning.

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

Content evaluation
''The content is very well written and provides useful information of the artist's background as well as her work. It includes information not just about Pitt's unique work as a woman, but also how she portrayed the Aboriginal people she photographed. I really like how extensively you talk about her work and subject matter; I think that's really important and well done.''

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
The tone is neutral and factual without making any opinions on the artist.

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

Sources and references evaluation
''The sources seem to be pretty reliable and the links work. The only thing is that the link for the National Gallery source took me to the Wikipedia page for the National Gallery of Australia. I'm not sure if that was an accident, but it should probably be fixed.''

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
''The article is well organized with the information being broken down. There are a couple of awkward sentences such as the one that begins, "Her photographs of children were..." which is a bit of a run-on sentence. Also, later in the article you use the word "lots" which I found sort of awkward as well. Other than that, the organization is good and easy to read.''

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
''The article does need some pictures added. There are links to galleries, but I think including the actual images would be helpful as well.''

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?

New Article Evaluation
The article seems to have a good amount of reliable sources, and does a good job linking other pages throughout.

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
''Ok so my only question that I thought of at the end is why is she called an American artist in the title even though she from Australia? Maybe I missed something or it's a mistake on Wikipedia's part.''

''Anyway...overall, the article is well organized and researched. There are a couple of changes that can still be made such as the rewording of a couple of sentences, adding some images, and writing a lead for the page. Obviously, any more information that could be added is always great, but for the most part I think it's really good and almost done.''