User:W1gly.w0rm/Long Jack Phillipus Tjakamarra/Vivv000 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

W1gly.w0rm


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://w.wiki/8B8y
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://w.wiki/8B92
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, new information has been added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, They summarized a bit of the background of the artist.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, sections were not mentioned in lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all information is present in article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes ,only information about artist and their artworks.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Most content seems to be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The only content that seems to be missing is artists' education, but it possibly could have just not been able to be found.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, before article was updated, there was no biography or much information about the artist.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral, there is no opinions in article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there is no heavily biased statements in article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are no viewpoints that are over or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? There are no attempts to persuade the reader to favor in one position or another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All sources seem to be reliable secondary sources except maybe one, two sources are books by reliable authors and the rest are either from museums or articles by educated authors on the subject, or reliable research. One source appears to be a blog though, being the sixth source in the article.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) The content accurately reflects what the cited sources say.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Sources are thorough, I don't believe I saw any information that was valuable and left out from the article from the sources.
 * Are the sources current? Some sources are pretty current while there are also older sources, but this could be because there are no new updated sources with new information to be found.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors such as Geoffrey Bardon who was an Australian teacher, and from art researchers, or information from museums.
 * 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.) A source I found has a biography about the artist and also lists his art works and exhibitions, https://www.redrockgallery.net/pages/Long-Jack-Phillipus-Tjakamarra.html I don't think this source was used from what I see, but it could have more useful information.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All links seem to work.

Organization
Guiding questions:

". I also think in this sentence " In early 1972, a painting room was created which would become the main area in which Long Jack and the other painting men would create their art" instead of saying "which would" switch it with "and it would".
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added is well written and easy to read however, I think this sentence might need to be reworded better "Bardon's encouragement of the Papunya school children to create art would inspire the elders, including Long Jack, to get involved in painting."
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? From what I can tell there are no spelling errors, but there might be a few grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content added is well organized and there are sections such as the biography, artworks, exhibitions, collections, and awards, as well as other readings.

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

No 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.


 * Not a new article

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content added has improved the quality of the article, there is now more information about the artist and their works.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content added is there's now more information about the artist and where they have come from, how they started as an artist, their personal life, their achievements, and a whole biography which wasn't in the original article.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content can be approved by fixing the two sentences I think would maybe sound better if reworded. And also, maybe by using another source than the one that is a blog.





Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.) This article is pretty well written and meets the requirements asked for with a few minor complications. While there is not much information about the artists education, none of the sources seemed to provide any information about it, but it could just simply be because there is no information about the artists' education to be found. It seems that maybe one of the sources might not be reliable as it is a blog, and the only information I can find about the author is that they are an art collector, however they do include their sources, so not sure if it is deemed as a reliable source or not. The only grammatical errors I can find are the two sentences I mentioned above. Overall, a good article and added a sufficient amount of information about the artist, while the initial article did not have much.