User:W1gly.w0rm/User:Vivv000/Anatjari Tjakamarra/W1gly.w0rm Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Vivv000


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Vivv000/Anatjari Tjakamarra
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Anatjari Tjakamarra
 * Anatjari Tjakamarra

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Vivv000! Here's my peer review of your article draft

Lead

 * Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - No lead has been added to article. The lead serves as an important aspect of a Wikipedia page as it lets readers know what the most important aspects of the article's subject are in a concise manner. I noticed that the original article doesn't have a lead either so it would be a good opportunity to create your own and greatly expand upon the original article. Your first paragraph could serve as a good start to a lead seeing as it introduces your subject and provides some of the information which is being discussed further into the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - There is no lead; see first statement.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - There is no lead; see first statement.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - There is no lead; see first statement.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - There is no lead; see first statement.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes, the information you added compliments what had already been written on the article. Your inclusion of more background information and relevant events that occurred in Anatjari's life prior and after him joining the Papunya Tula provided more context towards why he is important as an Aboriginal artist. Your inclusion of artwork descriptions and achievements further emphasize his notability.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Yes, all of the articles and references you used are all relatively recent with them all being from the 2000's.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - The only thing that stood out as out of place was the last paragraph of the biography section where you mention Fred Meyers and Anatjari's inability to speak English well. The information doesn't have much of a connection to the rest of the biography nor the final sentence of Anatjari's death. This mention might serve better earlier in the biography as a broader statement.
 * 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 discusses an artist who's works have made an impact on Aboriginal art as well as contemporary art at the time. I think adding the number of their works being held in a specific gallery was a nice touch and adds to the notability of the artist. It would be great if you could add that to the MAGNT and National Gallery of Victoria galleries if that information is available.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? - Yes, much of the added content maintains a neutral standpoint and doesn't impose personal biases from you or the references. Even in the sections where you're discussing Anatjari's artworks and style, you do a good job of making broad statements which report what people have said about him rather than what you think about it.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No, all of the claims maintain a neutral position with no bias being apparent. The article does seem to praise Anatjari for their contribution to Aboriginal art but I would assume that seems to come from the small amount of information surrounding the artist and those sources also praising the artist.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - Not necessarily. Going off of my previous statement, there is a lack of "criticism" surrounding the artist and their work making it seem like the article is intentionally praising them, but that's llikely due to the source gap.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - Again, not necessarily. The article portrays the accomplishments of the artist in a neutral way and attempts to refrain from outright, biased praise. The article does a good job of not introducing overtly biased opinions and sources.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Mostly, yes. A lot of the new information provided utilizes reliable, neutral references. I did notice that the description for Yarranyanga in your Artworks section didn't have a citation despite the rest of the artwork description having citations.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) - Yes, a lot of the content added is accurately and appropriately paraphrased from their sources. The only issues which may arise is that some statements are pretty close to what the reference states such as with your statement "Anatjari's paintings were known to tell Tingari stories" being similar to the source's "His paintings depict Tingari stories." I believe that this is an instance in which close paraphrasing is allowed but it's something to be wary of.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Yes, a majority of your sources are from articles or books which speak on the specific artist as well as Aboriginal art in general. Some sources only have short sections for the artist so they may not be the best but I understand that it's difficult to find information and sources especially with older Aboriginal artists.
 * Are the sources current? - Yes, as mentioned before, all of the articles and references you used are all relatively recent with them all being from the 2000's.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Yes, there is a variety of articles from museum sites to books, as previously mentioned. Each source has a unique perspective and attributes something new to the conversation of this artist.
 * 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.) - It seems that these sources are some of the better ones. I did see some books not noted in the sources that I found in WorldCat such as Dreaming the Land : Aboriginal Art From Remote Australia but I understand that these sources are more difficult to obtain. It may be worthwhile to scour the internet for some excepts of these books. I would suggest borrowing the book from a library but it's likely too late for that.


 * Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes, all of the links work and send you to the correct webpage.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes, the information added to the article is easy to read and flows well with the pre-existing text. There weren't any sections that I found to be too wordy or difficult to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - As far as I can tell, there are no major grammatical or spelling errors. The most that I can see in this sense is stuff like extra spaces such as in the last sentence of the fourth Biography paragraph: "Painting was an outlet for Tjakamarra as he didn't have much knowledge and at the time desired to return to his homeland, but couldn't because of the many difficulties." There is a space before the comma where none is needed. Other than small stuff like that, everything looks good.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - For the most part, yes. A lot of the new content flows well from one idea to the next, specifically in the Biography section, and the section headers work well in distinguishing the different parts of the article. The only issue I see has to do with the final paragraph of the Biography section, as I mentioned before, in which Fred Meyer's statement seems awkwardly placed. Also, it might help to bold the name names of the artworks in your Artworks section to help further distinguish which text belongs to what artwork.

Overall Impression

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - Yes, the content added has provided more insight into the life and importance of Anatjari as an Aboriginal artist. The original article only had minor background information and some information about their work that's in galleries, both of which you have expanded upon and tidied up.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - The addition of the Artworks section was a great way of expanding the article. It provides a way demonstrate the impact that Anatjari has left on Aboriginal and contemporary art. The conciseness and organization of your information also lends to the ease of readability which any good Wikipedia article should strive for.
 * How can the content added be improved? - Continue to add to the article. I think that the more relevant information you can add to the article, the better. Continue to search for new ideas and perspectives provided by different sources and continue to tell more of Anatjari's story and legacy.

Best of luck,

- Jorge